Playing Devils Advocate: An Argument Agaisnt The Holy Trinity In Light of God's Metaphysical Simplicity

[wheels10]

For the next 3 to 4 months I will be Arguing as an Atheist that is convinced that religion is just a delusion.

It is said that God is 3 persons in one.

But how can God be one absolutely simple Being - and therefore not a composite - if God is a composition of 3 distinct persons.

How is one meant to understand the Trinity without introducing some kind of composition in God?

Also, if the Logos is one distinct person, how can the Logos (the second person of the trinity) be identical to the absolute simple nature of God and at the same time not be identical to the Father (who is also identical to the nature of God)? Again this would appear to introduce composition in God as identical to “Esse”

There appears to be a contradiction involved in the concept of the Trinity.

The Holy Trinity is undivided unity.

What results in unity?

Love.

The Bible verse below describes Love:

1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,b but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

How would you define Love?

 

[R_C]

For the next 3 to 4 months I will be Arguing as an Atheist that is convinced that religion is just a delusion.

It is said that God is 3 persons in one.

But how can God be one absolutely simple Being - and therefore not a composite - if God is a composition of 3 distinct persons.

How is one meant to understand the Trinity without introducing some kind of composition in God?

Also, if the Logos is one distinct person, how can the Logos (the second person of the trinity) be identical to the absolute simple nature of God and at the same time not be identical to the Father (who is also identical to the nature of God)? Again this would appear to introduce composition in God as identical to “Esse”

There appears to be a contradiction involved in the concept of the Trinity.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2066&pictureid=15543

 

[Linux]

from post 1…

:banghead: :banghead:
How many times have I talked about this on these forums? I did again just two days ago on another thread.

I don’t follow your threads (and I don’t imagine many people do with your uncharitable attitude; it makes me wonder who you are paying to have survived this long without being Banned), so how am I suppose to know? But you are obviously a fan of my work; that’s why you’re following me…

There is only one divine substance and only one God. All three Persons fully have the divine substance.

If they all fully have the divine substance (are identical in all its fullness with the divine substance), how is it logically possible for them to be distinct persons?

As Aquinas pointed out 700 years ago ( although some people still haven’t got the message ) the three Persons are distinguished from each other only by relationship, not substance.

How can a group of persons be identical with each-other in substance and be distinct in relation? How does that work logically? Or is that one more thing you blindly agree with.

To the Father is attributed the power to know. Since his knowledge is infinite, and only God can be infinite, the Son is the Word of God.
The Father and Son have an infinite love for each other. Since only God can be infinite, the Holy Spirit is the love of God.
God’s mode of existence is completely different from ours. We are beings who do actions, but these actions are not necessarily what we do or what we are. God is his actions. He is “pure act”, as Aquinas says.

If God is his action and is his knowledge, what rational sense is it to make an objective personal distinction between God talking (the son as Logos) and God knowing (The father)?. This would appear to introduce composition into God’s divine and absolutely simple nature because it implies that God has different parts doing different things; the father knowing and the son doing all the talking but not knowing a dame thing!!!

There is no composition in God. He is Supremely One in all respects. But the three Persons reflect how he acts, and his infinity and mode of existence

If God is supremely one in all respects (knowledge, nature and action) then why would that not apply to person-hood as expressed in God? Why is he not one person?

require that these acts be persons. Otherwise, there would be no God. A finite God couldn’t create anything.

Why? Why should God be 3 persons in-order to exist. Why not just one person doing the thinking and the talking.

All this is nothing new. It’s been around for centuries. But certain people who want to not believe in God for selfish reasons ignore it,
and as demonstrated in the first post,
are careful not to let people become aware of it.

We can all speculate on the reasons for why people post the things they do on this forum (for example I think you are a bitter and scared person who is afraid of what rational scrutiny might do to your faith despite pretending to be a proponent of a rational faith; hence the knee jerk negative reaction) but that will not move the debate forward or lend to any further rational understanding of what you believe.

Ad hominem attacks are not charitable or reasonable even if you think the bases of that attack is correct.

 

[Linux]

Linux again…

But you don’t point out the points I made about the Trinity just a short time ago,
points you could not be unaware of,
since I’ve discussed them many times on this forum.

Bad, Linux, bad.

The world does not revolve around you and what you write. I haven’t got time to rummage through your threads to find what you believe to be a knock down argument in support of the trinity. This thread is not about you or whatever assertion that you have been lead to believe to be a rational argument. I am not interested in wild goose chases.

 

[Linux]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2066&pictureid=15543

Who cares?

Does that present a rebuttal to the OP? No.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

1X1X1=1

I don’t see the contradiction.

 

[Linux]

1X1X1=1

I don’t see the contradiction.

I see no contradiction, but then again this is not the trinity, it is an abstract mathematical concept. In the real world three persons is 3 distinct persons and not one person X the same person X the same person again.

 

[R_C]

Who cares?

Perhaps if you attempt (and it takes time and effort) to read what Aquinas has to say, instead of playing devil’s advocate, you’d learn some more about the Holy Trinity (though the only way I know of to learn about God is to become humble before Him.

 

[WmJackP]

For the next 3 to 4 months I will be Arguing as an Atheist that is convinced that religion is just a delusion.

It is said that God is 3 persons in one.

But how can God be one absolutely simple Being - and therefore not a composite - if God is a composition of 3 distinct persons.

How is one meant to understand the Trinity without introducing some kind of composition in God?

Also, if the Logos is one distinct person, how can the Logos (the second person of the trinity) be identical to the absolute simple nature of God and at the same time not be identical to the Father (who is also identical to the nature of God)? Again this would appear to introduce composition in God as identical to “Esse”

There appears to be a contradiction involved in the concept of the Trinity.

While one can say, for example, that an orb is triangular in shape and hold that as a “truth”; however, his belief is inconsistent with rational thinking or the result of erroneous comprehension of the terms. Some might say that it is delusional, or, at least, the misuse of language. To be as simplistic as possible in explaining why this is so, consider that:

1. Any fact which can be understood as true must first be understood.
2. If it cannot be understood then it also cannot be understood as true

Consequently, I submit no rational argument can be made for many of the propositions held by RC doctrine including that for which you play devil’s advocate.

 

[Linux]

Perhaps if you attempt (and it takes time and effort) to read what Aquinas has to say, instead of playing devil’s advocate, you’d learn some more about the Holy Trinity (though the only way I know of to learn about God is to become humble before Him.

Well if you are truly in that holy position, which you obviously wish to imply that I am not, then you should be able to rationally answer the OP without resorting to ad hominem attacks and red herrings.

Humble is something you are not.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I see no contradiction, but then again this is not the trinity, it is an abstract mathematical concept. In the real world three persons is 3 distinct persons and not one person X the same person X the same person again.

I was using the abstract mathematical concept to describe how “one” can be three dimensional.

At any rate “the real world” doesn’t apply to God. I think that is the first mistake among those who try to debunk God based on scientific or natural laws. In my opinion, it is illogical to try to make an argument against a spiritual Being based on the natural world and laws. But that’s just my opinion…

 

[Linux]

I was using the abstract mathematical concept to describe how “one” can be three dimensional.

How what can be three dimensional? Because it certainly doesn’t show us how God can be 3 persons in one absolutely simple nature. You are confusing the conceptual functionality of multiplication with reality. Not to mention the fact that 1 x 1 x 1 does not show us three ones in 1 nature. It just shows us 1.

At any rate “the real world” doesn’t apply to God.

That depends on what you mean by the real world. I’m sure you have a straw-man ready to go.

I think that is the first mistake among those who try to debunk God based on scientific or natural laws. In my opinion, it is illogical to try to make an argument against a spiritual Being based on the natural world and laws. But that’s just my opinion…

Accept I never made an argument based on natural or scientific laws.

 

[empther]

from post 23

Quote:
To the Father is attributed the power to know. Since his knowledge is infinite, and only God can be infinite,*** which is why there has to be a Son ]***

the Son is the Word of God.
The Father and Son have an infinite love for each other. Since only God can be infinite, *** which is why there has to be a Holy Spirit ]*** the Holy Spirit is the love of God.
God’s mode of existence is completely different from ours. We are beings who do actions, but these actions are not necessarily what we do or what we are. God is his actions. He is “pure act”, as Aquinas says.

If God is his action and is his knowledge, what rational sense is it to make an objective personal distinction between God talking (the son as Logos) and God knowing (The father)?. This would appear to introduce composition into God’s divine and absolutely simple nature because it implies that God has different parts doing different things; the father knowing and the son doing all the talking but not knowing a dame thing!!!

It does not imply that God has different parts, but only more than one action.

Quote:
There is no composition in God. He is Supremely One in all respects. But the three Persons reflect how he acts, and his infinity and mode of existence

If God is supremely one in all respects (knowledge, nature and action) then why would that not apply to person-hood as expressed in God? Why is he not one person?

Because of what I noted in the first quote in this post::
*** which is why there has to be a Son ]***
and
*** which is why there has to be a Holy Spirit ]***

Quote:
require that these acts be persons. Otherwise, there would be no God. A finite God couldn’t create anything.

Why? Why should God be 3 persons in-order to exist. Why not just one person doing the thinking and the talking.

Because of what I noted in the first quote in this post::
*** which is why there has to be a Son ]***
and
*** which is why there has to be a Holy Spirit ]***

I’m sorry if you can’t understand these concepts,
but your unsubstantiated and easily refuted claims don’t cancel the Catholic Church’s teachings.

 

[empther]

Another trash tidbit from post 23:

it makes me wonder who you are paying to have survived this long without being Banned),

:bigyikes: :banghead:

That remark deserves banning!

 

[Linux]

Trash from post 23
It does not imply that God has different parts, but only more than one action.

I don’t see how it follows that because God has more than one action that therefore there is 3 persons in God; neither does it explain how the trinity does not involve composition. Do you care to show how that follows logically? Or are you just going to assert your way through this thread?

Because of what I noted in the first quote in this post::
*** which is why there has to be a Son ]***
and
*** which is why there has to be a Holy Spirit ]*** .

I’m sorry but you have to back up your claim with reason; otherwise its not valid.

I’m sorry if you can’t understand these concepts,
but your unsubstantiated and easily refuted claims don’t cancel the Catholic Church’s teachings.

You have not resolved the difficulties that I presented in the OP.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I’m sure you have a straw-man ready to go.

Uncalled for. Uninteresting. Unsubscribed.

 

[Linux]

Uncalled for. Uninteresting. Unsubscribed.

Goodbye.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread CLOSED due to personal attacks and lack of charity.