In one post, prove the doctrine of the trinity is illogical by demonstrating a logical contradiction as the doctrine is presented by trinitarians.
Such presentations can be found in the nicene and Athanasian creeds, or a catechism, or a confession, for example.
Hint: "3=1" is not claimed by trinitarians, so posting it is a concession.
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
christcucks do not call themselves christcucks, but they are still christcucks.
3=1
I accept
>I accept defeat
I accept your concession.
>prove the doctrine of the trinity is illogical by demonstrating a logical contradiction
Dirk, the problem is you are illogical yourself, and no amount of logic will convince you of being wrong.
I was just about to make a bibble Christ cuck thread but this is good enough. Remember it's important not to put people down standing blissfully in peaceful ignorance.
Here goes nothing, cause you are going to reject it anyway and spout nonsense.
>Revelation 1:1
>The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
God ---> Jesus ---> angel ---> John
If God is all three, why not give the message directly to John himself?
Im asking for a logical issue with the doctrine. I'm not asking if it's biblical.
Exactly, you believe in human shit having no regard for the scriptures. What are you doing?
>believes father, son and spirit is one god
>believes father, son and spirit are god in themselves
>thinks 3=1 is not an accurate description of his position
sneed
Jesus Christ is "human shit though" theologically speaking the bible is just a bunch of text written by different people at different times to serve different purposes. Jesus is no different. Any man can claim to be the son of god and start speaking in a prophetic way, I'm sure you've seen homeless "crazy" people do the same
Except the homeless people are just (sometimes) blind instead of giving sight to the blind
>Dirt gave up on his own thread this easily
lmao
Nobody even attempted to find a logical contradiction
>Nobody even attempted to find a logical contradiction
Logic does not equate to truth, and i gave you something to challenge your proposition, but you bounced it off with some lame excuse about 'doctrine' as if doctrine doesn't pretend to be rooted in scripture.
You fulla shit Dirk...
Why do Christians have so much trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of three-in-one? Every eastern religion has understood it since the bronze ages. Is Christianity just inherently incapable of nuance?
1.000... Allah the First Person
0.999... Allah the Second Person
0.000...1 Allah the Third Person
Yahya and Isa taught Allah the Ones in their Arabic Numerals.
1.000... ampere*second is not 0.999... ampere*second is not 0.000...1 ampere*second
ampere is current, second is time
It's illogical because there's no god and jesus didn't exist. The trinity isn't even in the bible. It was made up later.
>ITS NOT REAL, ITS NOOOT REAAALL!!!
Stop sperging out, if it ain't your thing then go be useless elsewhere.
The co-authours Yahya and Isa co-wrote the Bibles, and the Qur'ans; therefore:
We know that Both existed. They signed their Novels. Why do you hate Books?
Any takers at all?
Read
You're a waste of time for everyone involved, or in other words, not worthy of spending time with
Why is Arianism illogical?
I don't claim it is
I wouldn't say it's logically inconsistent per se, as we're talking about the nature of a fricking God outside of space and time. Even in the universe causality gets fricky at the quantum level.
But I will say is the trinity is poorly defined, and attempts to clarify what it means usually gets called a heresy.
To Dirk or any trinitarian: Please define what person means in the definition of the trinity, in that 3 "persons" are all 1 God.
Because it is heresy to say that they are all different persons that share the nature of being God, like me and Joe both share the nature of being a 39 year old car mechanic, but it is also a heresy to say the opposite, that they are all different states of one God, like how the same H2O can be water, ice, or vaper.
Did you read the Athanasian creed?
Now I have, though I can't read latin:
>And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.
I restate my question: define person, and what it means that they share the same "essence".
Because you could say all men share the same essence, but we aren't the same man, but that's obviously not what you mean in this context.
>Genesis 2:7
>Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The breath of God is spirit, that is the essence of God and man and every other creature in the heavens and on the earth. We all share the same essence.
In this context essence is more like "being"
I've had this conversation more than once on this board so I hope it wasn't you, the being of god is really "whatever god is" and a person of the trinity is "whatever the father, son, and ghost are". We are limited in our description to what can be exposited from scripture.
ok, but as I said in my first post, the issue I have with it is it's incredibly vague. "the being of god" is "whatever god is" and person being "whatever the father, son, and ghost are" does not clarify a thing.
I'm not saying it's logically inconsistent, just that there's no way to clarify what any of these terms mean without using analogies that put you in a heresy like modalism.
For something like the nature of God, I suppose there's nothing wrong per se with a vague definition, but you have to admit that it is pretty vague. The whole purpose of the trinity is to explain how several statements about God and the "persons" in the NT don't contradict each other and can be harmonized.
And that's not an insult, that's just what the trinity was made to do.
I admit it's vague and in fact lean into it. You in fact do not need to use these terms to define the doctrine of the trinity.
fundamentally, it appears to say that all 3 are the same capital P person, but they are all separate lower case p persons.
Because they are not 3 persons who share the same nature, like 3 doctors are different persons who share the nature of being a doctor.
But they are also not the same being, like water switching between states of matter.
It appears to want both these cases to be true about the trinity while denying both.
That's heresy, Patrick.
Refuted by shewa
you're going to have to be more specific, because the only shewa I know is from biblical hebrew grammar, or apparently a region in Ethiopia according to google.
lol sorry I mean shema
Yes, I know that the shema says Yahweh is one. Theologically, the trinity must say God is one because of that. But it also must say God is three due to the NT.
I know the trinity seeks to reconcile this seeming contradiction. The thing is it basically reconciles it by saying both are true.
You have it exactly, the trinity says both are true, and as discussed this presents no logical contradiction. God is one in one sense and three in another sense.
The son is not the father
Sola scriptura doesn't mean to not use traditional language or ideas so I agree of course
>The son is not the father
I know, it's just a convenient way to have it both ways when convenient to your contradictory position. It's silly.
You've not demonstrated a contradiction in my position. At most you've expressed an opinion that it's silly for the son to talk to the father despite being of the same essence.
When the answer to a yes or no question can be yes or no depending on when it's convenient for you, you do not have a valid position.
>In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive
God is unchanging. That's not applicable. Enough with the cope. No one cares.
In the same sense
There is no sense in this understanding, therefor it is misunderstanding.
I mean the whole point is you've vaguely defined them as a person is what the persons of the trinity are and god is what god is.
you've vaguely defined terms to get around what is on it's face illogical, God is one and God is three persons.
What's illogical about that?
Dirk, you will never be in agreement with others because what you believe is not in agreement with itself, yet because you are in love with your own understanding you cannot accept the truth that you are wrong.
>You've not demonstrated a contradiction in my position.
>Matthew 6:23
>But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
reminder "YHWH" is an idol
Scripture alone is heretical, so our language is limited to Scripture and Tradition.
Anything else?
Tell me how you think this represents the doctrine of the trinity
Jesus' father is God.
Jesus is praying to God.
Jesus is God.
Jesus is praying to himself.
Dirk, how is it that you don't see the absolute hilarity of that meme? What do you think is wrong with it that stops you from cracking a smile?
watching Dirk analyze memes is like watching Ben Shapiro dissect WAP.
I don't follow Ben Shapiro and i didn't know about WAP, i guess now i know... i feel culturally enriched.
"apparantly there are golden boobs spouting water"
The aristocrats.
"essence", "persons"
these are made up words, of stuff that don't exist in reality
where is the essence located? lmao
Pretty much. Dirk has previously agreed that there is no existing thing analogous to the Trinity, that is not the Trinity. This is just a big special pleading to define a tri-god as monotheism.
That's not what special pleading means
I don't need to answer this, you need to prove a logical contradiction. Use the terms "widgets" and "gizmos" if you need to.
How is the Trinity not being illogical because it is defined as such, not special pleading? There is no existing thing that can be analogous to the concept, which literally means the Trinity (three entities) is a single thing (monotheistic god) is special pleading.
What's the alternative? Define the trinity in any way and it's illogical?
Do you define logical as possessing relatively near analogies? That's not right
I define logical as the state of being logically true, you know, not breaking the laws of logic, being self consistent, making sense, etc.
Analogies are common stuff to check for (logical) consistency. You know, swapping elements or classes of the argument or concept while keeping its form, in this case each member of the trinity (classes) while keeping the relationships (form), to see if it stands its ground, keeps making sense, etc.
Equating all the members AND dividing god into three parts? Come on, this is too easy.
>inb4 not equating because uhh they're different [buzzword]
So which of the Xs is not X?
>inb4 not dividing god into three because uhh simultaneously and coeternal and
Then declare that, or better not because you'll end up repeating the trinity and proving that you can't make an analogy out of it.
Ok, what's the law of logic which is broken?
Yes
What's your next move after I say identity, claim that "is" is not "equal to" ?
Just give an example where you can apply the same word and meaning without speaking nonsense. Make the analogy.
>you need to prove a logical contradiction.
Nobody needs to prove anything to you, truth will not force itself upon a man, only those who humbles themselves before the Lord will be given its understanding. In the mean time all you do is trying to prove yourself right without proving yourself righteous instead.
Arrogance wields it over you.
>I don't need to answer this
You totally have to. Unless you want to be talking gibberish
Trinity illogical? No, it's not even intelligible, Dirk is just making weird noises
it's a hot mess
His mind is as impervious to reason as stone is impervious to wind, you do not have the lenght of life to reach his understanding.
There are three X in one Y. Do you need a comprehensive definition of x and y to test the logic of that sentence?
wouldn't representing it as 3x = y be partialism? Because each person is not supposed to simply be a part (1/3rd) of God, but their own person.
Father = Godhead. Divine Ground of Being. ("The Father is greater than me.")
Son = Soul entirely aware of its Divine Ground of Being. ("Before Abraham was, I AM!")
Holy Spirit = Subjective replication of Godhead within soul. ("You ask to see the Father, but do you not know the Father is within me?")
The Perennial Philosophy perspective is perfectly logical.
Love how you take every post that disagrees with you as trolling.
where was he wrong though? "Is" means whatever action is taken, and sexual relations refers to relations that are referred to as sexual. Clinton did not refer to a blow job as sexual, so it was not sexual relations.
Just try to post. Trinity is something else. Less technical, much more simple.
Have fun with the freebies.
Trying to run away again, Dirk?
Still nobody has taken me up
Answer
instead of being a coward.
>Assuming there's magic, prove how this magical concept is impossible.
I think the Trinity makes plenty of sense in the context of a made-up story about supernatural being that confounds principles of logic as a defining characteristic. Many such tales out there.
I think the Trinity makes plenty of sense as a mechanism for reconciling a very classical disposition toward sound logic with a narrative that is a) about magic shit; b) internally contradicted; and c) written by people who probably didn't think anyone was going to be such nerds about it, and who could not possibly have predicted the form and nature of the organized church that rose out of their zany patchwork narrative. I strenuously doubt that the historical Jesus actually intended for an organized church to install him as an equal, indivisible coessential divinity with the God he was preaching about. Only with the passage of time and its moronifying force could this begin to fit its way into a grand parable of humility and sacrifice.
Whatever actual message about coessential divinity Jesus may or may not have himself preached, little doubt it's been badly mangled by the authors and the Academy
Yes, you can evaluate the logic of lord of the rings even if the valar don't exist
The Lord of the Rings was written by one person who himself knew precisely what he was trying to create and convey. If he somewhere made a mistake then it would be a mistake, and there's someone to attribute it to. That's literally not allowed with Scripture, so rather than evaluate the logic of the narrative, we have centuries of hairsplitting until a duly-appointed committee arrives at a cope that suits the internal logic of the text, and real world logic need not apply. The problem being that the academic impulse to apply a coherent framework of logic to Scripture is a mistake. The theological impulse to impute infallible divinity to the text likewise.
My point is that the Trinity as it is taught may very well be a sound logical framework to superimpose on a body of narrative that is illogical because it is a flawed human invention built upon scads of strata of translation, misattribution, confabulation, telephone; and at the most essential level, closest to the ultimate sources, based on shit people were just making up in the very day so narrated.
It's a great case of parable and symbol being taken all wrong by a scholarly class who need everything to fit in nice little boxes they can name and map out.
>Trinity as it is taught may very well be a sound logical framework
Thanks, that's all I really want to discuss itt
That post does not attempt to prove the doctrine illogical
Yes, it does, by use of a logical analogy.
You surely know what an analogy is in logic, am I right?
Prove the doctrine is illogical by use of analogy
I mean that's the entire point (
+
). One can't change the classes of a trinititarian form without turning it into nonsense.
Please, in one post, show the nonsense which necessarily follows from the doctrine of the trinity and which proves the doctrine to be illogical
And the Analogy is this:
That we worship one Space in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Dimensions, nor dividing the Value.
For there is one Dimension of the Height, another of the Length, and another of the Width.
But the "Values of Space" of the Height, of the Length, and of the Width, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Height is, such is the Length, and such is the Width.
Would you agree with this?
I don't think there's an analogous relationship between the original terms and your substitutions but go on
I'm also asking for a one post proof btw, I'm not here to submit myself to scrutiny and for you to play gotcha
Then what would be a good analogy?
There is no direct analogue to the doctrine of the trinity. You can make an analogy regarding an aspect of the trinity, like the three states of water show are like how the persons are three in one sense and one in another sense.
As already discussed, there does not need to be an analogy to the doctrine for it to be logical, so I'd really like off this rabbit trail and I'd like to hear your straightforward presentation of why you think the doctrine breaks the rules of logic.
>show are like how
are like how*
>Thanks, that's all I really want to discuss itt
Ha, I know it is, you worm. I know how you like to tune your parameters.
God isn't real, so the father and the holy spirit are also false, and the son probably exists but has little contemporary documentation to back it up,
By the way, the reason I posted the entire analogy is so you can tell me if I made an error on any clause swap. It's not to analyze the analogy itself.
>Hint: "3=1" is not claimed by trinitarians, so posting it is a concession.
Yes they do. They claim that 3 beings, the Son the Father and the Holy Spirit are all one being called God.
Incorrect
The Son the Father and the Holy Spirit are NOT one being called God ?
They are
So it is correct.
Nope
?
.
Are you trolling again?
In one post, prove the doctrine of the trinity is illogical by demonstrating a logical contradiction as the doctrine is presented by trinitarians.
>as the doctrine is presented by trinitarians.
You don't present it, right
you just make weird sounds, like widget and gizmo, without explaining what you mean
If you don't know what the doctrine is you're not exactly equipped to comment on its logic are you
I don't think you know what the doctrine is
it's unintelligible
that's why you refuse to explain what the terms mean, you can't
You can't win cause you are trying to be reasonable, he's just going to beat you down with stupidity.
1 being 3 persons, why resort to strawman?
Do they share the same body, mind, and spirit?
God has no component parts
Yet you divide His person into three parts.
I'm not educated enough to debate about the intricacies of the Trinity but I appreciate the thread. Any resources I should read to better understand the intricacies of the Trinity?
>to better understand the intricacies of the Trinity
Anon, G*^ is simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
That's fair enough
But is it important to understand the Trinity's intricate being to better understand the Trinity, like whether they're three distinct persons or one distinct person in three persons or whether they share the same essence or three different essences?
Please know I'm not arguing with you at all I just want to know
Look up the Athanasian creed, it's probably the best description of the doctrine. Start there and then move on to the specifics, like sharing essences, the idea of persons, identity, etc.
Thank you anon, I really do appreciate it.
The trinity is illogical
Even if you claim that god is a property that the trinity possess, it creates a logical problem. It is impossible for three distinguishable entities to have the property of god. God is the ultimate apex of perfection and any blemish or even the infinitesimally small deviation from perfection means that they are infinitely far from the apex of perfection, just like balancing a mathematically perfect sphere on a mathematically perfect cone; if it’s not EXACTLY on the center, it will slide right off
The fact that they are distinguishable, like how only the father knows the time of the rapture, means they have differences which is incompatible with perfection. It either means one is contradictory to eachother, or that there is a hierarchy and that one is higher than the other
Trinitarians do not claim god is a property
Subordinationism is compatible with the doctrine of the trinity
You have not made an attempt to show a logical contradiction in the doctrine of the trinity
"Why god do this" is not an argument against the logic of the doctrine of the trinity
>each member of the trinity is co equal to each other
>the father is above the son and the holy ghost
what the hell lmao it can't get more contradictory than this, like seriously how is this not a problem, one thing was redefining 3 as 1 but outright contradicting yourself like this is on another whole level
Equal in a different sense, therefore non contradictory. I'm not here defending subordinationism though, but the doctrine of the trinity. I'm open to you bringing your first argument.
Not saying that co equal = literally the same, but on the same hierarchy or level, which... seems to not be the case?
Bro are you defending the trinity because if you don't you're not a Christian or are going to hell or something? Like what's the reason behind this thread defending it?
In terms of voting you are equal to a crackhead. In terms of social contribution you are not equal with a crackhead. These are simultaneously true.
I'm making a point, the doctrine is called illogical constantly yet nobody can demonstrate it.
Again, I'm not talking about function or activity, but hierarchy. After looking it up it seems that in fact Subordinationism is the idea that the father is hierarchically above Jesus and the holy ghost.
How is this different from Arianism? Because both really sound like they're saying the same thing.
Arianism posits that the son is a creature
>Equal in a different sense
Right, so it's not what humans mean by the word "equal".
This is why you need to explain your terms, or the entailments of them.
Is it equal in the sense of a "=" , just that it allows for true dialethism as a bonus? No, why not?
What does it mean?
Right-
Can you sympathize with why I got an unintelligibility take on this?
What's the context of equal where you're quoting it? You're meant to be proving the doctrine illogical in the way a trinitarian has presented it
the "is" linking father, son and spirit to God in the OP picture
So what were you quoting when you said
>what humans mean by the word "equal"
I'm referring to the word equal as used in the reply chain, were it refers to the "is" in the OP picture
stop dancing
You're meant to prove the doctrine of the trinity is illogical in one post. The goal here isn't to see if my personal articulation has some flaw.
Right, and I can't do that if its unintelligible..
brilliant move
who do you think you are fooling? it's not me
the thread? yourself?
If you find it unintelligible you cannot comment on the logic of it
>if you find it illogical, you can't comment on the logic of it
BRAVO
R
A
V
O
TRIPgay
Those words are not synonyms
I disagree with your judgment about it being unintelligible, with the rest of historical western philosophy, therefore I don't agree with your comment about "alogic". It's just not interesting to spoon-feed you the doctrine, so stop posting itt of you don't have an argument like I asked.
Don't tell me what to do, specially when you behave like an ass when trying to discuss the topic of the fricking thread.
I'm asking you to discuss the topic of the thread
Here's more advice, filter me
Dirk is here for one thing and one thing only, he wants to prove himself superior in understanding and there is nothing that is going to convince him of the opposite.
>the rest of historical western philosophy
btw, what's their take on it being logical?
My point was. The trinity is not a real thing that exist in reality. It's words Christian philosophers made up.
It's entirely dependent on how terms are defined. The Creeds, are ill-defined
Their take is that it is logical, and for the christians of western phil, true.
Whether you believe it to be true is not interesting. I'm looking for anyone who claims it's illogical to clearly tell me why.
The thread has been up 3 days so I think we've found our answer
I just think it's weird that you can't define what the terms used in the creeds mean
Which again is not an argument
>The thread has been up 3 days so I think we've found our answer
Yes, the answer is that you are incapable of debating something without resorting to utter bullshit...
Sure
It's not illogical, it's not logical. It's alogical.
It's just a bunch of ill-defined terms strung together, noise.
You have told us what it's not. It's not modalism, etc
The problem is that you can't tell us what it is. What does the "is" in OP picture mean and entail? What's a person, what's and essence?
These are things we'll never know.
>Subordinationism is compatible with the doctrine of the trinity
>Subordination is compatible with the apex of perfection
I accept your concession
I don’t pretend to be well-versed in Christian theology. I’m just giving an outsider’s POV.
The Trinity feels like an exercise in mind control by the church, like Oceania switching sides. Any attempt to make the trinity more coherent is declared a heresy. You can’t believe the trinity because it makes sense to you, instead you can only depend on the church saying it’s true.
The easiest way to debunk trinity and any paul teaching without using 3=1 argument because of christcucks demand is by using objective and the consequence of trinity
Let's say trinity is real. Why he need to manifest into human in the first place?? He didn't need to make blood sacrifice just to forgive the mistake of human (that he know their mechanism and fate btw) who some eat stupid fruit without his permission??Even if he banish them out of Eden he still send the prophet into each era to guide humanity into proper path of Heaven . The act of human sacrifice is more linked to pagan gods or devil. There's no such thing as Original sin. Everything is determined by your own efforts but for some reason kekstian believe that Judas is the traitor just because he lead Jesus to the crucifixion (which is his goal btw) and will be tortured in the lowest hell. Why would someone who help the God's grand plan should be send to hell??
God is atemporal, and exists outside of time, as well as uncaused/uncreated.
The pseudo-Athanasian posits that the Son is generated i.e. causes by the Father and that the HS is generated i.e. causes by the Father and the Son.
Thus only the Father can be called God. The others are dependent and caused, I do recall hearing an argument that causality implies temporality but I can't think of it rn
why does the old testament never mention the trinity?
The new testament doesn't either dummy, but that's off topic