Can it be true that 1 + 1 = 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlNg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This redefinition of arithmetic is not good.
58+19 = 59
But 57 + 20 = 57
59 does not equal 57 but reason tells us that
58+19 = 57+20.
 
I would think that ∞ + ∞ + ∞ = ∞ is quite different from lunar arithmetic above.

Lunar arithmetic destroys the notion of what “+” means by simply changing the rules of successfully adding with larger numbers and creates an inconsistency between the real world of number and what we mean by adding in the real world.

I do not believe ∞ + ∞ + ∞ = ∞ is inconsistent in the real world with what we mean by infinity and addition. And the reason is because “infinity” is not actually a fixed number/amount that can be adequately symbolised and operated on with pen and paper.

A bit like God actually - which strangely, is what started this thread on logic.
The Trinity is not illogical, it is above logic because God cannot be adequately conceptualised.

Logic requires the manipulation of fixed symbols/concepts of reality and its conclusions only refer back to reality in so far as the symbols truly represent the reality symbolised.

But like the infinity symbol, God cannot be conceptualised in such a boxed way so any attempt to apply logic seems to fail…but it may not in reality.
 
Last edited:
The three persons in the trinity are not additive, nor are they juxtaposed or juxtaposable, nor are they elements in a set. The three persons are hypostases of God. Bringing the addition operation to bear on them is absurd – and I am using the word “absurd” here in its technical sense, not its pejorative sense. One might as well wonder whether an apple divided by a hammer equals a horse.
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
One might as well wonder whether an apple divided by a hammer equals a horse.
Click to expand...
Pfft of course not, it’s two (or, most probably, more than two) ragged apple pieces plus a mushed apple middle.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately if we believe Persons/Hyposteses can be counted and Natures can be counted then we have a common term which invites a syllogism.

So your example is not really the same as no common term is involved.
 
I’m Jewish, and therefore do not accept the Trinity.

But this common argument against the Trinity doctrine doesn’t work since the theology of the Holy Trinity would have to be based on this logic. It isn’t. Christian doctrines are based not on the acceptance of human logic but the transcendence of faith.

So you cannot start to argue against the Holy Trinity by apply a critical argument to it. The Holy Trinity is a transcendent concept, meaning it cannot be measured by critical laws of logic.

As a Jew, I don’t accept the Holy Trinity, but not on the basis of the grounds that it defies logic. As a Jew, much that I accept does not necessarily fit the exact definition of the human limits of understanding. But Jews do accept that there is something greater than ourselves.

Personally, I don’t believe in God in supernatural terms, i.e., some deity person in the sky that will grant you requests that you ask, no matter how little or great, and then reward you with eternal life with the angels in Heaven or damn you to some horrible in life for eternity because you didn’t live up to some moral code. My religious tradition is over 3000 years old and allows me to see God in more of the Source and Power that sustains the Universe and Life in General.

Catholic tradition sees that the Father is God and that the Son is God. Jewish theology which is far older allows Jew to believe that God can be the power behind gravity, the love you see and receive from a friend’s support, hug, and smile, or from the Providence that directs your life in a good way and more, etc.

So your way is just 1+1=1, but the Jewish way, if you think about it is 1+1+1+and infinite possible of other things still equaling just One.

Huh. if you want to fight with anyone, maybe you should pick a fight with the folks who invented monotheism and made up the rules for it in the first place. To the Jews, who came up with the monotheistic concept that we developed first, technically speaking, while I don’t subscribe to the Trinity itself, if Jews can see God as able to be experienced as many different things that are definitely not the same, simultaneously, I don’t see your problem.

It’s our God. The monotheism concept is ours. Technically speaking the Trinitarians, while not doing it the way we Jews might not prefer, aren’t breaking the rules. It doesn’t come from your culture, does it?

Then go watch a cat video on YouTube.
 
In God, one person (the Father) + one person (the Son) = two persons, not one person. However, the two or three persons do not equal 3 beings, substances, or divine natures but we believe the 3 persons are one being, of one divine substance, of one divine nature, in a word, one God.

The three persons are one God because the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Father are of an interior and immaterial nature from the very substance of the Father and not passing out to something exterior such as the begetting of a son or daughter from human parents who have a separate existence and being from the parents. The Father begets the Son from his intellect for the Son is called the Word of God (John 1:1) who is the concept of the Father’s intellect, for an interior word signifies the concept in the intellect. The concept or idea (interior word) produced by the intellect is within the intellect of the person producing the concept. Accordingly, the generation of the Word of God by the Father’s act of understanding remains within the Father and is of the same substance as the Father as the Word of God is generated by the Father’s very act of understanding and divine substance. Similarly, a concept or idea we conceive in our intellects is in our intellect and proceeds from it. The concept we conceive is not a substance distinct from us but it is within us and technically called an accident. But God has no accidents but there are relations which distinguish the persons but unlike in creatures where relations are accidents as well as our own thoughts, the relations in God and his act of intellect and will are his substance from which proceed from the Father distinct subsistent persons. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the one will of the Father and the Son which is also an interior emanation. In this way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one substance or one divine nature but three distinct persons analogous in a certain sense to our own spiritual intellect and will from which proceeds their acts but which are acts of one substantial being and one human nature.
 
Last edited:
I would say that the Three Divine Persons equal the one Divine Nature. God’s nature requires Him to be Three Persons in that one Nature. When adding 1 to 1, you must know “One What?” God is One What (Divine Nature) in Three Divine Whos (Three Persons). How this works out mathematically, we don’t know, it exceeds our discursive intellectual ability. But when you are doing math with numbers, it is one thing to be adding quantities and what they are quantities of.
The Trinity does not mean 1+1+1 = 1. It would be more accurate to say "1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Holy Spirit = 1 God. In math, you have to define your terms. Otherwise, you will fall victim to the logical fallacy of equivocation. That is what people who claim the Trinity is Three Gods are guilty of. It also leads to the fallacy that the Trinity is “1+1+1=1”. You have to specify what 1 is of.
 
Last edited:
Well there is your problem GOD is ONE.
But there are 3 persons not 1 or 2 but 3 persons.

In your stated assumption of: 1 + 1 = 1 Your left side has 2 distinct entities.
That is the 2 elements of your right side are separate ones (1) lets clarify:
(1 Banana + 1 Banana) = ? how many Bananas.
Don’t think too hard for the answer.

But in God’s case our equation would be:
God x (Father + the Son + Holy Spirit) = 1 God with 3 persons within Him

And if you could fully grasp this mystery you would be truly a most blessed person since the greatest Theologians of all time have mulled and pondered this issue.
 
I think of this as
God Is Covenant Love, Ahava or Agape in the Greek.
God Loves God’s Word for God,
God Shares God’s Word for Others.
Before Creation - the Divine Potential for Sharing Love with Others had to Exist;
or no Creation.
Three kinds of Eternal States of Being; of One God.
Similar to me, myself, and I.
I’m me, I know myself, I exist among others - to help either procreate children &
contribute by Grace to help others know God - or have ‘spiritual’ children for the latter.
"IAM THAT IAM,’ speaks of this, also.
So does, Genesis 1:26, and other places, "“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’”
Angels do not Create, only God does. So the plural can only be God expressing to God for God to Act. God Is More than able to manifest Himself in The Form of a Man; not in Form Only, to be temporarily known to be of human estate; but show uncompromising
Ahava in Providence; to Sacrifice Himself in Agony by Providence, to Save us and show unconditional love for God’s Perfect Uncompromising Ways to be imitated.
He shall be called Emanuel, always, when The New Heaven and New Earth are complete; when Scriptures like Psalm 149 are true for everyone of Salvation.
 
Last edited:
I think one needs to define person in this context because Trinity is not about three beings but one being and three person.
 
Common core math says that, yes, 1+1 can equal one if you simply don’t count one of them.
 
Roguish said:
nor are they elements in a set
Click to expand...
Obviously, no mathematical representation would be perfect for representing God. Math is very good at solving numerical, spatial, and time-based questions regarding our physical universe, and God is very notably neither physical nor bound by any of those things math quantifies.

However the saints have, throughout history, sought physical ways of beginning to understand the Trinity, even if those ways are not perfect. My point in bringing up set theory was not to say that it perfectly represents the Trinity, for the many things about the Trinity that set theory doesn’t touch on. It was instead meant to show that there are mathematical models that are much closer to the language used to describe Trinity than addition and that those models also don’t render the Trinity illogical.
 
Last edited:
I hope that is a joke.
because, even if it isn’t related to the question;
it doesn’t pass the logic test of the meaning of addition.
Once, a man came up to me to discuss a moral issue.
So, a used a normal start with somethings are objectively true,
like 2 + 2 = 4. He replied that depends, if you include the plus
sign, then you get 5. I bowed out of the discussion saying if you are going
to present fallacy in simple mathematics; then you will certainly con-volute
your argument against objective truth. He said everything is relative.
 
IsaiahSpirit said:
I hope that is a joke.
because, even if it isn’t related to the question;
it doesn’t pass the logic test of the meaning of addition.
Once, a man came up to me to discuss a moral issue.
So, a used a normal start with somethings are objectively true,
like 2 + 2 = 4. He replied that depends, if you include the plus
sign, then you get 5. I bowed out of the discussion saying if you are going
to present fallacy in simple mathematics; then you will certainly con-volute
your argument against objective truth. He said everything is relative.
Click to expand...
No, that’s really what common core says (or what the teachers say, anyways). They want you to ignore one of the ones. It’s supposed to “encourage critical thinking” but is a total joke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top