I PROVED THE TRINITY! ...or did I?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rennabasses
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rennabasses

Guest
Trinity

Creation is unnecessary for God’s existence
God is infinitely loving
God is infinitely deserving of love
Love is directed at another
“God is Love [agape]”
  1. Should creation not exist, God, infinitely loving and infinitely deserving of Love, must infinitely Love Himself. However, Love is directed at another. A solitary one-person God is not capable of Love. At least two persons are necessary within God.

    A. A one-person God has infinite potential to love, yet can only Love infinitely in the presence of an infinite creation.
  2. Two persons infinitely loving one another generate infinite Love but do not constitute Love itself. However, “God is Love.” The infinite Love generated between the two persons has generated a third person, Love itself.
  3. Is God truly Love? Should God alone exist, Love would exist. No Love exists apart from God. Thus, God is truly Love.
 
I’m completely in line with this.

God is our perfect example of how to love, agape style.

I’ve heard the Holy Spirit described in this manner…
God loves the Son and the Son loves the Father SO completely, that the love between them is an entity all it’s own, and is named the Holy Spirit.

Following this example…
When a couple gets married, they are no longer two, but one. The love they have between them is SO strong, that in nine months they might have to give it a name.

michel
 
Well, you haven’t proven the Trinity, since the Trinity is a mystery, but you have given a strong argument for it, using Greek philosphy.

But not everyone adheres to Greek philosophy, nor dose everyone use Catholic theology, so not everyone will understand the argument, nor buy it. However, I comend you for deliving into the Mystery of the Trinity!
 
After a rousing conversation with a friend, I revised the proof a tad:

Trinity

Creation is unnecessary for God’s existence
God is infinitely loving
God is infinitely deserving of love
Love is directed at another
“God is Love [agape]”
  1. Should creation not exist, God, infinitely loving and infinitely deserving of Love, must infinitely Love Himself. However, Love is directed at another. A solitary one-person God is not capable of Love. At least two persons are necessary within God.

    A. A one-person God has infinite potential to love, yet can only Love infinitely in the presence of some creation.
  2. Two persons infinitely loving one another generate infinite Love but do not constitute Love itself. However, “God is Love.” The infinite Love generated between the two persons has generated a third person, Love itself.
  3. Is God truly Love? Should God alone exist, Love would exist. No Love exists apart from God. Thus, God is truly Love.
 
A good book to read is Theology and Sanity by FJ Sheed. I believe there is an online version of the book.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas also had five things proving the existence of God. I saw a good article on Catholic.com once but I can’t find it anymore. Good thing I printed it out! 😉
 
It’s a nice try, but there are some problems with your premises (above and beyond the whole ‘there is a God in the first place’ bit 😉 ).

God is infinitely loving/God is Love

Acceptable by Christian lights, but not necessarily by other belief systems. There are numerous arguments in favor of a less-than-perfectly-good (or even outright evil) deity, and no want of religions preaching the existence of gods who are not all-loving.

God is infinitely deserving of love

Again, not necessarily. Follows from the previous: would an evil god or some kind of demiurge be infinitely worthy of love?

Love is directed at another

Here’s the big one. This is debatable even if one accepts all the other premises. Love can and should be directed at the self as well as at others – does not Jesus preach to love others as you love yourselves? If you do not love yourself, what point is there to that teaching, or indeed to life at all?

And then there are the implied premises: that God is one (polytheists would take issue here), and that two persons may share in one nature.

In the construction of your argument, you also make two erroneous assumptions: first that the capacity for love cannot exist without an object, second that just because your God is both infinitely capable and infinitely deserving of love, there must be love. Just because he can doesn’t mean he has to.

Point 2 is also an easy target. You’ve established in your premises that God is Love already, without the necessity of a third person. To reuse your premise and introduce it as something New is complete and unjustifiable flummery.

Point 3, if we’re still even talking at this point, is redundant. It’s a nice summary, but it says nothing new and should be a conclusion rather than another step.

You already accept the trinity on faith as a mystery you will truly understand only in the next life; why try to justify the unjustifiable, or circumscribe the infinite? It isn’t so much that theology is a totally empty branch of inquiry, but that there are going to be questions that will never be resolved on this side of eternity.
 
I’ve slightly rephrased your excellent argument:

God is love.
God is worthy of being loved.
Love is directed at another.
Creation is unnecessary to God.

Therefore, the Nature of God must inherently consist of more than one Person.

The rest of the argument, whereby we conclude that God is Three because the Third Person is the love between the First and Second Persons, is found in St. Thomas’ work.
However, this explanation, that the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son, is a figure, not a literal description. If this were literally true, then love would only be found in the Holy Spirit, and not in the Father and Son, which is absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top