J
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
Just a thought here. Take it leave it, it’s just a comment.
I wonder if a Catholic was unaware of the concept of the trinity and you explained that it was an Islamic belief about God and went on to explain it exactly as any knowledgeable person might, how would they react?
Show any policy speech to a Republican and a Democrat and tell them it was given by a Democrat. The democrats will tend to support it and the Republicans reject it. And vice versa.
My guess re the trinity is that it would be rejected: ‘Yeah, Muslims eh? They believe all sorts of nonsense’.
I wonder if a Catholic was unaware of the concept of the trinity and you explained that it was an Islamic belief about God and went on to explain it exactly as any knowledgeable person might, how would they react?
Show any policy speech to a Republican and a Democrat and tell them it was given by a Democrat. The democrats will tend to support it and the Republicans reject it. And vice versa.
My guess re the trinity is that it would be rejected: ‘Yeah, Muslims eh? They believe all sorts of nonsense’.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
You are right, in a sense. It is nothing but an ASSUMPTION.
If you have an exception, then your corollary is already unfounded.
Besides, there are zillions of existing entities, which are uncaused, IF you believe that we have free will. If our actions free, then they are uncaused, so the concept of uncaused existence is not just not questionable, it becomes ho-hum obvious. Every free action of humans is the beginning of a new, uncaused causal chain.
Furthermore, your basic worldview is pretty much the same as mine. We both say that there is one uncaused entity, and everything else is contingent upon that entity. You call it “God”, I call it the universe. You say that God “simply” exists, needs no explanation and it is the basis of all explanations. I say that the universe simply exists, needs no explanation and it is the basis of all explanations.
You might say that every element in the universe is “logically contingent” - meaning that it does not exist “necessarily”, it may not exist. (I had a conversation about logical necessity with Gorgias, but that thread was locked down for some reason.) That is correct, but does not help you. The universe is not an object, it is a collection of objects. However, to try to generalize from the elements to the whole container is a well known logical fallacy, the “fallacy of composition”. It may be that every element in the universe is logically contingent, but from that fact it does not follow that the collection of all those elements - the universe - is also contingent.
So the assumption of a “godless” or “creatorless” universe is not illogical. As a matter of fact, the concept of “explanation” is also quite simple: it is a logical process that we use to show that some new event can be reduced to the hitherto known explanations. However, if you wish to use God as the underlying “first cause”, then your “explanation” becomes: “an unknown and unknowable being, using some unimaginable means made it somehow happen”. And that would be the antithesis of “explanation”.
Finally, even if one could “prove” the existence of “first cause”-type of creator, from that there is no “road” to the God of Christianity.
R
reggieM
Guest
I gave a datum of Faith: “I and the Father are one”. I gave others.
Aquinas for example, explains the difference in persons as that of relation. The relations and essence of God are the same - this therefore does not conflict with divine simplicity. However, the relations (persons) are distinct from essence only in ‘the mode of intelligibility’ not really in God. It’s because of the limits of human reason that we see “3 components” so to speak, when in reality they are one in the essence of God.
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL! “If a Catholic was unaware of the concept of the Trinity.”
So, like, a baby after he’s baptized.
Okey dokey. I guess you’re right.
Baby would be all, “I’m wet and oily. Now I’m hungry! And this Trinity thing–makes no sense to me. Must not be true!”
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would say the concept the trinity has existed from the dawn of time.
My recollection is now sketchy, but I think Isis and Osiris was some kind of trinity. I think there was some form of Mother goddess worship as well.
I think there is a Hindu trinity - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
Pharaoh was believed to be God, as was the Roman Emperor and other Emperors. So in the first century it’s not that strange Jesus would have perceived as a god.
Historically, blood sacrifice is also a consistent feature of religion, as is baptism or water ablutions.
I could go on, but suffice to for now Christianity didn’t invent anything new. Historically religion does ‘borrows’ in that it doesn’t really come up with anything new but rather redefines and reinterprets what is already in existence. In that sense it’s a bit like political theory in that in political theory it is next to impossible to come up with something new and unique as you can be rest assured no matter what you come up with someone, somewhere has said it all before.
We are also influenced by the medium in which we live. The Israelites were influenced by surrounding cultures - particularly evident during the Hellenization period. There are two ways of looking at this. Christianity reinterpreted pagan beliefs - or - there is a consistent vein of truth that has ran through religion irrespective of time and culture from the dawn of time.
On your last comment - We are influenced by our upbringing. My mother used to say religion is an accident of birth. The same can be said of our national and political allegiances among other things. If you have been brought up to believe the Trinity is a false doctrine not supported by Scripture which some religions do, that is what you will believe - irrespective of who tells you otherwise as they must be wrong. If you are brought up it is truth you have no reason to believe it is false and will see it in Scripture.
My personal view is the Trinity is not something that is believed as a result of experience and not head knowledge. One could read about God from now to kingdom come, but a deep belief personal comes from perceived encounters with God.
R
reggieM
Guest
What is the origin of all contingent reality (the universe, the multiverse, all things)?
- I don’t know
- Some contingent things always existed for infinite time past
- Things came into existence from nothing
- Everything was created by a non-contingent first cause
If so, then #4 is an answer to the question that we can arrive at through reason. While at the same time, it necessarily conflicts with some aspects of reason. But so does #3 and #2. A person must arrive at the best, most reasonable answer.
That’s a unique point - I’ve never seen it before in many years of discussions with atheists, so that is great! I think it’s more advanced in many ways than a brute denial of the possibility of an uncaused cause. Yes, if we want to think about it that way - sure.
First, that consideration is a major problem for materialist-atheism, and it basically refutes scientism. If thoughts are really “entities” and they truly emerge from free-will and are therefore uncaused, then something exists which is not reducible to empirical science.
But this bumps into another problem? Where did those uncaused causes come from? If they’re not caused by any prior cause - did they just always exist?
So, there’s a great point about how ideas are created freely by intelligence. They are not generated by any deterministic (physical, natural, law-like or random) function.
However, we know that human thoughts are still contingent. They still depend upon human beings for their existence. So, when we look for the origin of thought, we can trace them back to the intelligence that created them. But what created those intelligences? Now we have an infinite regress.
That seems to be a good parallel. But without intelligence, the universe is deterministic.
R
reggieM
Guest
Vera
The point here is what is the better explanation.
Universe - does it have boundaries? If so, what? Do you arbitrarily assign them, are they unknown, unknowable? If it has boundaries, what is “outside of the universe”? What is the demarkation between “universe and non-universe”?
Is it infinite from the past in a sequence of time? If so, how could the universe traverse time to arrive at today?
Where did all the matter and energy and natural laws come from? That’s a lot to just posit as “always existed”. Did everything exist as it is today? Why those natural laws and forces and not others? Why are they constant over an infinite period of time? How do some things show change and decay, when this would be impossible (philosophically) in an infinite time? There is potentiality and infinite time. Over an infinite amount of time, anything that is possible to occur - must necessarily have occurred (definition of possible and impossible). Why hasn’t that occurred? What about the multitude of parts that support a universe/multiverse? Are they also eternal existing infinitely? If not, when could they have arisen over an infinite sequence of time? How did a beginningless universe arrive at the time when it could generate something new? If something happens today, why didn’t it happen an infinite amount of time ago (if anything could actually happen an infinite amount of time from any given point)?
There are a lot more unsolved, unanswered issues with an eternal universe. Sure, you can just posit it and accept all of that ambiguity and often just arbitrary claims about a thing that would have no cause, no reason for existing and no way to know about.
God - does He have boundaries? No. He is non-contingent and therefore does not depend on any external force, space or thing to define His being. He is the source of all Being, Knowledge, Intelligence, Power, and Created things. These come through acts not influenced or determined by anything external to him - so he is non-contingent. His free-will is the creative trigger, so to speak. He created time, so exists outside of time and is therefore not changed by time. His being is not measured sequentially. There is nothing lacking in his being. So, there is no potentiality in Him that is not fully actualilzed or realized. There is no lack in being - therefore no lack in goodness or existence, and therefore no evil.
Sure, this remains a probabilistic argument. The question is whether this is more reasonable than a self-existing but contingent universe.
The free act of creation is an act of communication. It communicates the fullness of Being into contingent creatures. These creatures also have intelligence and free will.
So … the Road to Christianity then appears.
If a Free, non-continent, First Cause – communicates being through Creation of contingent beings with intelligence, what else has this First Cause communicated to contingent reality?
That’s where the road takes us on the discovery and analysis of revealed religion. Thus, Christianity.
There remains a lot that is unexplained when positing an eternal universe.
The point here is what is the better explanation.
Universe - does it have boundaries? If so, what? Do you arbitrarily assign them, are they unknown, unknowable? If it has boundaries, what is “outside of the universe”? What is the demarkation between “universe and non-universe”?
Is it infinite from the past in a sequence of time? If so, how could the universe traverse time to arrive at today?
Where did all the matter and energy and natural laws come from? That’s a lot to just posit as “always existed”. Did everything exist as it is today? Why those natural laws and forces and not others? Why are they constant over an infinite period of time? How do some things show change and decay, when this would be impossible (philosophically) in an infinite time? There is potentiality and infinite time. Over an infinite amount of time, anything that is possible to occur - must necessarily have occurred (definition of possible and impossible). Why hasn’t that occurred? What about the multitude of parts that support a universe/multiverse? Are they also eternal existing infinitely? If not, when could they have arisen over an infinite sequence of time? How did a beginningless universe arrive at the time when it could generate something new? If something happens today, why didn’t it happen an infinite amount of time ago (if anything could actually happen an infinite amount of time from any given point)?
There are a lot more unsolved, unanswered issues with an eternal universe. Sure, you can just posit it and accept all of that ambiguity and often just arbitrary claims about a thing that would have no cause, no reason for existing and no way to know about.
God - does He have boundaries? No. He is non-contingent and therefore does not depend on any external force, space or thing to define His being. He is the source of all Being, Knowledge, Intelligence, Power, and Created things. These come through acts not influenced or determined by anything external to him - so he is non-contingent. His free-will is the creative trigger, so to speak. He created time, so exists outside of time and is therefore not changed by time. His being is not measured sequentially. There is nothing lacking in his being. So, there is no potentiality in Him that is not fully actualilzed or realized. There is no lack in being - therefore no lack in goodness or existence, and therefore no evil.
Sure, this remains a probabilistic argument. The question is whether this is more reasonable than a self-existing but contingent universe.
Your explaination of an eternal universe is the same. It is unknown and unknowable. What power does it have? How does it exist? We have answers for that with God. Since God is non-contingent first cause, God is the necessary Being from which all other causes exist.
The same is true of a multiverse. However, you’d have a blind, unguided, unintelligent, contingent thing - supposedly creating intelligence, order, laws, harmony. Why?
Sure there is. You have a First Cause. Accepting that, you accept a Transcendent Being which is not dependent on any other force, matter, laws or powers. The First Cause is the origin of those things. A non-dependent Being, therefore – cannot be determined by external causes. A Being which is non-determined (by gravity, matter, forces, etc) - acts Freely. An agent that acts Freely is a rational being, a person. That’s Theism.
The free act of creation is an act of communication. It communicates the fullness of Being into contingent creatures. These creatures also have intelligence and free will.
So … the Road to Christianity then appears.
If a Free, non-continent, First Cause – communicates being through Creation of contingent beings with intelligence, what else has this First Cause communicated to contingent reality?
That’s where the road takes us on the discovery and analysis of revealed religion. Thus, Christianity.
R
reggieM
Guest
Actually, you’re right. The reason Catholics believe the doctrine of the Trinity is that it came from Jesus Christ. As Aquinas points out, faith-based teachings cannot be arrived at by logic or natural reasoning alone. Nobody could reason from observations in nature that God is a Trinity of 3 Persons in One God.
That teaching comes from Authority.
As Aquinas says - when the Authority is accepted (by Faith) to be speaking truly about God, then that is an infallible source of knowledge.
The reason Catholics would reject the concept of the Trinity if they thought it came from Muhammad, is that Catholics know that Muhammad did not claim to be God.
But Catholics accept what Jjesus tught - not because they could follow a syllogism of logic to deduce it, but because they accept Him as a divine authority.
Virgin Birth, Divine nature of the Holy Eucharist, forgiveness and remission of sins in Confession, power of grace in Ordination, Resurrection of Christ, Ascension of Christ, Christ will come again to Judge the Living and the Dead, necessity of believing teachings of the Catholic Church for salvation … there are dozens of Fatih-Based teachings that are accepted, not because we have experiential knowledge, but because we accept Jesus as God, we accept that He established one Church that teaches infallibly in His name.
The Athanasian Creed, again (excerpts)
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
This is a statement by authority. Either St. Athanasius (and the Church that promulgated this Creed) speaks for God and is correct - or not.
Catholics believe it is correct because of the Authority of Christ and the Infallible Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Then what? Well, the Creed starts basically “Anyone who will be saved from eternal damnation in the pains of hell, must believe this”.
We accept that because it comes from Jesus, who we believe is God.
We believe Jesus is God because He gave abundant signs of His divinity – signs that were given to prove his divinity. That could never be done by argument - it required miracles.
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, but it is then important for you to state your objections against faith.
This makes your target some knowledge prior to that of the Trinity, which requires faith.
So, why do you not believe the revelation of God given to the Jews?
Why do you not believe that Jesus taught truly revealed doctrine?
Heretical Christians rejected the doctrine of the Trintity because they started from a belief in the New Testament revelation and reasoned (wrongly) that Jesus didn’t teach the Trinity. That is a valid means of argument (even with false conclusion).
Jews reject the Trinity, starting with the revelation of the Old Testament (which Jesus pointed to as a prophecy of Himself). So that also is valid.
So, what are your objections to faith in the truth of any of the revealed teachings?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you have any source for this?
This is quite contrary to the entire Jewish paradigm–a man being God was the absolute antithesis of Judaism.
Correct.
It certainly didn’t invent new morality–every morally sane person already knew it was right to turn the other cheek, feed the poor–but it did “invent” a lot of other religious ideology, as well as become the foundation for Western civilization, including the scientific method, universities, hospitals…
Yes.
Once we’ve received the truth then it is our responsibility to try to apprehend it.
Even if it was simply an accident of our birth.
One could read Genesis through Revelation, every single word, but never come to the idea of a Trinity.
That comes from Christ, through His Body, the Church.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
That’s a reasonable assumption if by “know” you mean know in the scientific sense. But if the God of the philosophers is beyond scientific knowledge, how is it not possible to reasonably infer his existence to explain the laws of the universe that are rationally knowable.
This is what Einstein did.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein
M
minkymurph
Guest
No I don’t. What I wrote is a vague recollection of reading this topic some years ago.
I did find this on google.
hindunet.org/god/trinity/index.htm
Is was quite contrary to the Jewish paradigm yes - my comment was in the context of 1st century Rome in general.
No it didn’t - there are moral concepts that have existed from the dawn of time.
It is. My comments were made in that Bradski is not wrong in that there are those who would reject something purely on the basis someone in the ‘other camp’ said it, and this is not unique to religion.
Absolutely.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But it wasn’t the Romans in Palestine who thought Jesus was divine.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
I have repeatedly and clearly stated that my objection to the trinity is that it is self-contradictory.
So to summarize:
- My objection IS that the teaching is self-contradictory
- My objection IS NOT that Christians have no grounds to believe the trinity is a revealed teaching.
It doesn’t matter how credible someone is; the credibility question is not prior to the logical possibility question. You can’t “appeal to authority” your way to a violation of the law of non-contradiction because in order for the proposition to be coherent in the first place requires that it not contradict itself. Feser’s defense was to simply say “its possible that there is an interpretation of the trinity that isn’t self contradictory” and my syllogism demonstrated that this was not the case; the doctrine is self-contradictory no matter how you slice it.
So it doesn’t matter on what grounds Christians believe the trinity because we haven’t even made it that far yet.
It almost seems to me that you want to set this up to be like an unstoppable force colliding with an immovable object. You want to take the position that there is an infinitely credible authority asserting an infinitely impossible truth. When the two collide, you say “well we’re justified in siding with the authority because we can’t really tell what happens when these infinite things collide.”
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
So would three leaves on one clover be contradictory to you?
M
minkymurph
Guest
No it wasn’t.
I made this comment in response to the question if someone had never heard of the Trinity would they believe it? The answer is yes as first century Gentiles believed it when they heard the message of the Gospel. As did Jews and I speculate the divinity of Christ presented greater difficulty for them. To the Gentiles belief in a ‘man god’ was nothing out of the ordinary.
Perhaps this is why initially more Gentiles than Jews accepted Christ? Though again I speculate.
P
PRmerger
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
Close but not quite.
We take an infinitely credible authority (or infallibly credible authority).
That authority makes assertions about an infinite,incomprehensible Being whose nature transcends human reason.
So, no. The authority is not asserting an infinitely impossible truth.
Within the context of an infinite being, spaceless, timeless, with infinite powers over whatever humans think are thoughts, ideas, concepts – who actually created what we know of as concepts --who actually created the idea that “something is possible”, we cannot determine that something is impossible in that context. Our reason does not have access to it.
Now, you would complain “this is just an irrational assertion and cannot be accepted”.
But I pointed out, in the nature of the God of the Philosophers there are many non-rational concepts. We cannot conclude that to create something from nothing, or to exist simultaneously in past present and future – is “infinitely impossible”.
To determine that something is impossible, you have to be able to circumscribe (comprehend) the data set that you’re analyzing.
We conclude something is impossible when, in an infinite number of opportunities, it never occurs.
But we can’t test an infinite number of opportunities.
We can take random samples - but even that doesn’t work mathematically.
What proportion is 100,000 of an infinite set? It’s impossible to measure.
Richard Dawkins once said, famously, in the movie Expelled that the probability that God does not exist is more than 50%. But clearly, he can’t measure the probability of that without knowing the data set, which would be infinite in this case.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think I might correct this to saying that there are many supra-rational concepts in Catholicism. Or meta-rational.
It would be a mistake to call the dogma of the Trinity non-rational.
It is rational, it just goes beyond rationality, or transcends it.
Thus, supra-rational.
- Status