Three-in-One = Trinity?

[Beno]

…At best, it’s “a mystery”…and if that’s the case, why would God force us to believe in something that makes no sense in order to achieve salvation?

God became a man. This fact is beyond my ability to make sense of. It is incomprehesible but it does not mean that it is not to be believed. I know of no one who can explain where matter comes from without going into that which cannot be understood. All is mystery. By the way, God does not force us to do anything. Many of us choose to believe because there is better rationale for believing than for not believing.

 

[Montalban]

Let’s see…there are two things approaching a claim here

Okay, believing that God is two things, one of which negates the other, is a textbook example of a contradiction. “God is and God is not.” You could not get anymore clear. The word “opposites” that you’re using seems to be the problem here…there’s a reason I didn’t use it, and it appears to be confusing you.

They don’t negate each other at all. There’s other examples where something is both knowable, and in its entirety unknowable - the universe is an example of this. We know it, but we can’t know all of it.

There’s no problem with knowing of ‘unknowables’ at all. Except for you? One can logically know that unknowables exist. I’m sorry that this is too difficult a concept for you.

Tokens of a thing and the persons of the trinity are apples and oranges.

Do you know what the word ‘analogy’ is?

This is perhaps the worst analogy yet presented on this thread with respect to the trinity; each “1” that you have on a piece of paper is a token example of “1” in the abstract. If the persons of the trinity were just “tokens” or instantiations of one God, then God wouldn’t be triune…it would be one being that gets instantiated in three slightly different ways.

(re: Know what an analogy is?) Obviously you don’t.
It’s not to say that this is what the Trinity is (exactly) but to show you that it’s possible for something to be the same, and different from something else at the same time - something you’re not even willing to acknowledge, even at the stage of token as you call it. Funny that

Let’s start off with the basics.
in the equation 1x1x1=1 do you
a) acknowledge that each digit is of the same value as the others?
b) see that they are different digits from each other (insofar as the first ‘1’ is not the second ‘1’)?

Of course, that’s not the teaching of the trinity, which is why I’m puzzled as to the use of this example of tokens. There’s really not even a remotely plausible way to fit the numbers example to the teaching of the trinity.

Except that it shows that one can be the same as something else, but different.

I am of course assuming that you’re posting your objections without a smirk. Because here you go again just saying “It doesn’t make sense”.

 

[Montalban]

Just for anyone else interested, some scientists don’t shut eyes to the ‘unknowable’

"So what is an example of something unknowable? Take the diet of a given person living in a village in the year 1300. “You may know on average what his diet was,” said Jesse Ausubel, the program officer of the Sloan Foundation. “But you cannot say what he ate on Dec. 15, 1300.”

chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/98/02/02/unknowability.2-2.html

Thus one can know something’s unknowable, which itself sounds a contradiction.

“Chaos theory grounds a post-modern science that is unpredictable, hence unknowable to the degree of precision demanded by modern science. Indeed; the essence and presence of a factor in a given degree cannot be used to predict, linearly, the behavior of a system; bird, atom, molecule, photon, person, species, or society. No longer may we use formal axiomatic theory in conjunction with binary logic with which to model reality, predict and thus control system dynamics. Indeed control itself becomes a casualty of post-modern science.”
critcrim.com/redfeather/chaos/001intro.html

“(Chaos is) the unpredictable evolution of the behavior of many nonlinear dynamical systems. Because of their sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the error in predicting the future states of such systems grows exponentially with time, so that the future states of such systems becomes essentially unknowable in a relatively brief period of time. Although chaos means unpredictability, it should not be understood to mean that the system was not or is not determined (Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997, p. 304).”
goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2001/BrainsBodiesBifurcations.htm

“Another famous negative result, due to the British genius, Alan Turing, states that you cannot tell in advance if a certain abstraction of a digital computer called a Turing machine will ever halt with the correct answer. Now, what all these impossibility results have in common is that they are about the manipulation of symbols, that is, they are about mathematics.”
edge.org/3rd_culture/traub/traub_p2.html

Thus according to Turing the only prediction one can make about the outcome is that we can’t predict the outcome.

 

[pro_universal]

There’s no problem with knowing of ‘unknowables’ at all. Except for you? One can logically know that unknowables exist. I’m sorry that this is too difficult a concept for you.

See above. This is already covered in previous posts, and has zero to do with my critique of the trinity. It’s a particularly simple concept-it’s just not one that is relevant to the discussion. Reread my posts–You will find absolutely zero reference to the trinity as an example of an “unknowable” in this sense of the term. You seem to be creating a strawman argument…whatever the case, you are certainly not responding with this point to anything I’ve said.

Do you know what the word ‘analogy’ is?

Yes, that’s how I was able to explain why “1 x 1 x 1” is a particularly useless analogy with regards to the trinity.

It’s not to say that this is what the Trinity is (exactly) but to show you that it’s possible for something to be the same, and different from something else at the same time

If that’s all you mean to claim, it is obvious and irrelevant at the same time.

Yes, it’s possible for this black dog to be the same as that black dog in the sense that both are black dogs. Likewise, this written number one is the same as the symbol 1 in that they both represent one, but different in that I typed them in two different places. What on earth has that got to do with the trinity?

Except that it shows that one can be the same as something else, but different.

Okay, but you are conflating “similarity in one respect” with “100 percent identical.”

The substance of God, in triune theory, is indivisible. Hence, the person of the son is not the same kind of God as the Father…he is the exact same, 100 percent identical God. The son is the one God…ie, God and the Son are identical to each other.

At the same time, the Father and God are identical to each other.

Yet the Father and the Son are not identical.

See the problem? You are talking apples and oranges with 1’s and “same and different.” 1 is a token of a concept; the concept will always be separate from any particular example. A person in the trinity is the concept, and there is no such thing as a “God form” above and beyond the existence of that one God.

You are confusing yourself and using really bad analogies because, I suspect, you are not paying careful attention to what your words mean. I’m sorry, but it’s simply not possible to have a discussion on the trinity when your language is at the level of “same and different”. There is an entire theological lexicon that goes with the trinity, and its terms are precise…and there’s an equally precise language of reasoning that you should think about mastering if you want to make sense of this doctrine for yourself.

 

[Montalban]

See above. This is already covered in previous posts, and has zero to do with my critique of the trinity.

It has everything to do with it. But alas, true to form you simply say “no it isn’t” (and I note you avoid my little test about 1x1x1)

It’s a particularly simple concept-it’s just not one that is relevant to the discussion. Reread my posts–You will find absolutely zero reference to the trinity as an example of an “unknowable” in this sense of the term.

As noted it’s to show that one thing can be two seemingly opposite things at the same time. I really strongly suggest you go look up the word ‘analogy’ as you continually show a no grasp of it… unless you’re doing this just to entertain

Come back when you have

Yes, it’s possible for this black dog to be the same as that black dog in the sense that both are black dogs. Likewise, this written number one is the same as the symbol 1 in that they both represent one, but different in that I typed them in two different places. What on earth has that got to do with the trinity?

For the umpteenth time, it’s to demonstrate the possibility that two things can be the same, and yet different at the same time.
In this case the number 1 is EXACTLY the same as the number 1, it’s more than just ‘similar’ as the case of the black dogs you gave.

And as you’ve picked up on Jesus IS the same.

And yet at the same time you say it doesn’t make sense! Bravo, you yourself demonstrate two conflicting statements at the same time…
you understand this, and you don’t.

And within one post you finally demonstrate the knowledge of analogy, why the problem at top of post, I don’t know.

 

[pro_universal]

It has everything to do with it. But alas, true to form you simply say “no it isn’t” (and I note you avoid my little test about 1x1x1)

I’m sorry, but that was specifically addressed in my last two posts. There’s an added point here you might want to be aware of:

The little “x’s” are notations. 1 x 1 x1 isn’t three different ones, it’s one possible way of writing 1. You could also use a single tally mark, or a chinese character, or whatever else you want…it is exactly the same thing. There aren’t three ones, there’s just a different form of written notation for a single 1. (This on top of the problem with numbers being tokens always separate from the concept–a challenge you seem to be incapable of answering.)

As noted it’s to show that one thing can be two seemingly opposite things at the same time. I really strongly suggest you go look up the word ‘analogy’ as you continually show a no grasp of it… unless you’re doing this just to entertain

Come back when you have, or when you’re willing to answer my questions. I didn’t think you would answer but I live in hope

Okay, two “seemingly opposite things” at the same time in whatever example you want are not going to tell you anything about the trinity. Your language is getting more and more sloppy here. You went from “same and different” to “seemingly opposite” to “unknowable.” I’m not sure if you understand what you yourself are saying anymore.

To repeat: Your analogy adds zero to the debate. It’s not an example of a trinity: three persons, all individually God, all distinct from each other, but only one single God between all of them.

The trinity is not “One God written in three different ways”, it’s “One God who is triune.” So all the number examples and cut-copies of Turing logic (which is so far removed from this topic that it’s appearance is truly bizarre–I could certainly not have predicted someone would ever bring it up discussing the trinity!)…are not analogies to the trinity. They don’t follow the form, and they don’t involve the same kinds of representations.

 

[Montalban]

I’m sorry, but that was specifically addressed in my last two posts. There’s an added point here you might want to be aware of:

The little “x’s” are notations. 1 x 1 x1 isn’t three different ones, it’s one possible way of writing 1. You could also use a single tally mark, or a Chinese character, or whatever else you want…it is exactly the same thing. There aren’t three ones, there’s just a different form of written notation for a single 1. (This on top of the problem with numbers being tokens always separate from the concept–a challenge you seem to be incapable of answering.)

It’s a maths equation LOL I thought that this was plain to see, especially as I had noted that this was so before. They are three different 1s. The first 1 is a distinct 1 from the second 1, as it is from the third.

They are three different digits in that equation. Each 1 is of the exact same value as the others.

And it is ‘like’ God insofar as each member of the Trinity is both the same as each other, and distinct.

Can’t wait to see how you avoid this one.

Okay, two “seemingly opposite things” at the same time in whatever example you want are not going to tell you anything about the trinity. Your language is getting more and more sloppy here. You went from “same and different” to “seemingly opposite” to “unknowable.” I’m not sure if you understand what you yourself are saying anymore.

If you note I’ve used several different examples.

I also note that in no way do you acknowledge even in the form of analogy that something can be both the same and different.

And for point of confusion, you demonstrate that with your counter-analogy of two dogs. Which are less similar.

To repeat: Your analogy adds zero to the debate. It’s not an example of a trinity: three persons, all individually God, all distinct from each other, but only one single God between all of them.

You won’t even deal with the analogy.

The trinity is not “One God written in three different ways”, it’s “One God who is triune.” So all the number examples and cut-copies of Turing logic (which is so far removed from this topic that it’s appearance is truly bizarre–I could certainly not have predicted someone would ever bring it up discussing the trinity!)…are not analogies to the trinity. They don’t follow the form, and they don’t involve the same kinds of representations.

They are by showing that something can be two opposites at the same time. I enjoy repeating this as you enjoy saying it’s not.

 

[pro_universal]

It’s a maths equation LOL I thought that this was plain to see, especially as I had noted that this was so before. They are three different 1s. The first 1 is a distinct 1 from the second 1, as it is from the third.

Okay, this will require basic mathematics…if there were three different 1’s on the left side of the equals sign, and only 1 on the right side…then it wouldn’t be an equation. You need to look up the definition of the word equation.

If there’s a 1 on one side, and it’s actually an equation…then the other side is, plain and simple, a different written representation of the exact same one. That’s pretty fundamental to math, so I have no idea where you are getting this “distinct 1 from second 1 from third 1” business. The fact that you can use different symbols to represent the same value doesn’t mean that the symbols are themselves “distinct values”

And for point of confusion, you demonstrate that with your counter-analogy of two dogs. Which are less similar.

It’s exactly the same sort of similarity. “This written one is the same kind of number as that written one” follows precisely the same logic as “this black dog is the same color/type as that black dog.” They are both particular instantiations of the same abstract concept: two one’s as examples of 1, and two black dogs as examples of the archetypical black dog. Maybe you see it differently because you don’t understand mathematics, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

They are by showing that something can be two opposites at the same time. I enjoy repeating this as you enjoy saying it’s not.

Repeat away…you didn’t address the argument. Didn’t even try.

 

[Montalban]

It pains me to see Pro_universal have all manner of DIFFERENT arguments.

He says that the Trinity of God being both the same and distinct people does not make sense.

By way of analogy I have given MANY examples of things that are superficially, illogical;

One can have something that is both knowable and unknowable at the same time, I gave examples of this from science.

One can have something that is the same, and different at the same time… by example I gave the maths equation 1x1x1=1 where each and every digit in that equation is a distinct digit (as it would be if I had written 1+1), also in this example they are also of the same value.

Pro_Universal’s constant avoiding of this analogy by either
a) saying the analogy has nothing to do with the Trinity
or
b) avoiding altogether this as a real possibility, even within the confines of a conceptualisation is painfully telling.

Thus Pro_universal’s objections that something can’t be the same and different at the same time simply fails, in concept at the very least. But he won’t even acknowledge that.

 

[Montalban]

Okay, this will require basic mathematics…if there were three different 1’s on the left side of the equals sign, and only 1 on the right side…then it wouldn’t be an equation. You need to look up the definition of the word equation.

Here it is for you.

1. The act of equating or making equal
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/equation
   You are quite amusing. Especially as you want to advertise yourself in such a way.

If there’s a 1 on one side, and it’s actually an equation…then the other side is, plain and simple, a different written representation of the exact same one. That’s pretty fundamental to math, so I have no idea where you are getting this “distinct 1 from second 1 from third 1” business. The fact that you can use different symbols to represent the same value doesn’t mean that the symbols are themselves “distinct values”

No where did I say they are distinct VALUES. They are distinct numbers.

Oh well, you’ve shown here both a lack of understanding of maths, and an attempt to re-work what I’ve stated.

It’s exactly the same sort of similarity. “This written one is the same kind of number as that written one” follows precisely the same logic as “this black dog is the same colour/type as that black dog.” They are both particular instantiations of the same abstract concept: two one’s as examples of 1, and two black dogs as examples of the archetypical black dog. Maybe you see it differently because you don’t understand mathematics, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

The two black dogs are similar. They are not exact.
The number 1 at the beginning is of EXACT VALUE as the number 1 in the middle. And yet they are different number 1s, because one appears in a different place to the other.

Repeat away…you didn’t address the argument. Didn’t even try.

Considering you’ve attempted a re-work of what I’ve said, no wonder it didn’t address it!

 

[pro_universal]

Montalban,

This is just too strange.

No where did I say they are distinct VALUES. They are distinct numbers.

Okay, so what exactly do your numbers represent if they don’t represent value?

The number 1 at the beginning is of EXACT VALUE as the number 1 in the middle. And yet they are different number 1s, because one appears in a different place to the other.

Uh, no, they’re not…the first one is the value of the number 1, the second is the number of examples of the first that you have, and the third is the number of the examples of the first multiplied by the number of times specified in the second.

That’s just a complicated, long way of writing “one” in this example. Exact same number, two different written forms. If you had put a chinese character for one and a number one on both sides of the equals sign, you’d have exactly the same equation.

Now some of the more obvious contradictions in your argument, which is what I’ve been claiming the trinity produces all along, are right here:

Pro_universal’s objections that something can’t be the same and different at the same time simply fails

Just so you know: If you don’t qualify the phrase so that it’s not actually “the same and different at the same time”, you’ve got a textbook example of a contradiction. “Same and Not Same” is a contradiction. No two ways about that one, and no amount of scribbling the equations you learned in maths will change that.

Further:

One can have something that is both knowable and unknowable at the same time, I gave examples of this from science.

Uh, no, you gave examples of things that were known about things that were unknown. That’s not the same thing as “knowable and unknowable” in the abstract, which would be a blatant contradiction.

I think you are confusing yourself here…you need to take a breather and read carefully before you post these things.

 

[Montalban]

I am still uncertain if Pro_universal is genuine in this because it seems rather odd that someone would want to advertise a lack of understanding of concepts such as analogies and simple maths.

When a resident Moslem apologist wants to claim that the Trinity is illogical we as Christians are obliged to demonstrate, in good faith, the logic of our claims.

His objections that God the Father can’t be both the same as God the Son, and different at the same time has lead me to use an analogy that was so simple I was sure it could be understood by anyone who’s done any primary maths.

In the example of 1x1x1=1 each and every 1 is different to the others, because the first 1 is not the second 1. The second 1 is not the third. And at the same time each are exactly the same in value. 1 is the same value as 1. 1 is fully 1.

Pro_universal wants to claim that this has nothing to do with the Trinity. God is not a 1, for sure, but aside from his confusion over the term analogy it demonstrates the concept that one thing can logically be the same as something else, and AT THE SAME TIME be distinct.

Thus it is logical, at least in principle to believe that one thing can both be different and exactly the same at the same time.

This is why it’s a better analogy then his own re-working of black dogs (even if they were clones). I don’t know why he insists on raising this!

 

[Montalban]

Uh, no, they’re not…the first one is the value of the number 1, the second is the number of examples of the first that you have, and the third is the number of the examples of the first multiplied by the number of times specified in the second.

That’s just a complicated, long way of writing “one” in this example. Exact same number, two different written forms. If you had put a chinese character for one and a number one on both sides of the equals sign, you’d have exactly the same equation.

A-ha! I think what’s confusing you is what follows the = sign. I am not trying to write 1 at all, but show that in a sum each 1 is distinct. Even here you’re still wrong, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

In the sum 1+1+1=3 each of the 1s has the same value. I understand that TOGETHER they make 3, but that’s not part of the analogy but that they are distinct numbers. Ignore the + sign, the - sign, the x sign. In those equations each 1 is the same value but also distinct from each and every other 1 in that equation

In the following

4-4-4

1+1+1

2x2x2

and so on

However even here you’re wrong, because although in 1x1x1=1 it can be said to be a way of showing 1, it also shows that in 1, there’s the components of 1x1x1 which are all equal.

This is in fact a BETTER analogy than say 2x2x2 because in 1x1x1 they equal 1, which is like the Trinity. All three members of God are one God.

Now some of the more obvious contradictions in your argument, which is what I’ve been claiming the trinity produces all along, are right here:

Just so you know: If you don’t qualify the phrase so that it’s not actually “the same and different at the same time”, you’ve got a textbook example of a contradiction. “Same and Not Same” is a contradiction. No two ways about that one, and no amount of scribbling the equations you learned in maths will change that.

I’ve demonstrated amply that one can be both.

Uh, no, you gave examples of things that were known about things that were unknown. That’s not the same thing as “knowable and unknowable” in the abstract, which would be a blatant contradiction.

If something is unknowable, it means it’s not known, but we know that it’s unknowable, which means that it is known (to an extent). There’s another word for you to look up for homework;
paradox.

They exist.

I think you are confusing yourself here…you need to take a breather and read carefully before you post these things.

You can have the last say tonight. I’ve got to get up an go to work in the morning.

I thought I was bad at maths, but I’m glad to have met someone far worse.

 

[Veritas41]

The problem is that in this case, the thing revealed itself doesn’t make sense. So yeah, if you presume that the authority is correct, you can believe anything…even a contradiction.

But if you aren’t comfortable believing that even contradictory teachings must be accepted, how do you justify believing in the trinity?

The Trinity makes sense and it isn’t a contradiction, I just cannot *completely *understand the mystery because I have a finite human mind and the Trinity is the revelation of the nature of the infinite God. I don’t understand many things in the material world (like many forms of mathematics, computer programming, etc.) and they don’t make sense to me, but that doesn’t mean those things aren’t logical or go against reason – it just means *I *have a problem understanding those things.

 

[Valke2]

Every religion is entitled to a little bit of mystery.

 

[chrisb]

Okay, believing that God is two things, one of which negates the other, is a textbook example of a contradiction. “God is and God is not.” You could not get anymore clear. The word “opposites” that you’re using seems to be the problem here…there’s a reason I didn’t use it, and it appears to be confusing you.

Grace and Peace pro_universal,

The Trinity is a neo-platonist way of saying that God is Infinite, beyond the distinction of unity and plurality, being and non-being. In Christianity, in our modern day, it is used to establish a paradox not a contradiction but that was not it’s original intent.

To understand the original intent of the Triadic Form of Divinity we have to understand Platonism during the time of Jesus Christ. Read the Ennead by Plotinus to grasp an example of this thinking in it’s neo-platonist form.

Even with this said there are some issues with the teaching of the Trinity in the form that it was expressed by Athanasius. The emanations of the One (Father) are not actually equal to the One because that is impossible due to the fact that these are beings (emanations of God) and the One is beyond being and ungenerate where as the Nous (Son) and the World-Soul (Holy Ghost) are generate by the One (Father).

Outside of a neo-platonist logical framework, the Triadic From of Divinity is confusing to say they least and the teachings of the Trinity is a stretch of the Triadic From of Divinity in neo-platonism.

So I understand the Muslim criticism from the Oneness claim as well as from the neo-platonist claim but we really should take this discussion to a higher level of criticism.

Peace!

 

[hamba2han]

I think that Trinitarians are selling the concept of God way too short.

I mean, if 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, then why limit it to just 3 manifestations?

After all, since 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x … ad infinitum would still be equal to 1, then Christians might as well do like what the Hindus have done in incorporating God into everything in the Universe i.e. pantheism.

 

[chrisb]

I think that Trinitarians are selling the concept of God way too short.

I mean, if 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, then why limit it to just 3 manifestations?

After all, since 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x … ad infinitum would still be equal to 1, then Christians might as well do like what the Hindus have done in incorporating God into everything in the Universe i.e. pantheism.

Grace and Peace Namba2han,

neither Hindus or neo-platonists suggest that the One is not separate from creation but they do suggest that all creation emanates from the One. These emanations are in a certain sense part of the One in that they are given being in Divine Thought (Nous) and given life through the Divine Spiration (World-Soul).

In speaking the divine ‘BE’ the One does not give creation independence as all creation does not have life beyond the active will of the One for only the One has life. In other words the One establishes all of creation through an act of will which also maintains it and gives it life. Without the One there is no life at all.

In a certain sense, both positions are accurate.

Peace.

 

[exoflare]

I think that Trinitarians are selling the concept of God way too short.

I mean, if 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, then why limit it to just 3 manifestations?

After all, since 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x … ad infinitum would still be equal to 1, then Christians might as well do like what the Hindus have done in incorporating God into everything in the Universe i.e. pantheism.

You just took that inch and stretched it out to a mile, didn’t you? Once again you missed the whole point of what was being said. The 1x1x1 is NOT the basis FOR believing in the Trinity… it was only brought up to counter some troll’s allegation that units being distinct and yet the same is necessarily a contradiction. Good try though, it would have been a great strawman argument for you to tear down.

 

[chrisb]

You just took that inch and stretched it out to a mile, didn’t you? Once again you missed the whole point of what was being said. The 1x1x1 is NOT the basis FOR believing in the Trinity… it was only brought up to counter some troll’s allegation that units being distinct and yet the same is necessarily a contradiction. Good try though, it would have been a great strawman argument for you to tear down.

Grace and peace exoflare,

Athanasius once said that “God became Man, so that Man might become God”. With this in mind, I don’t believe hamba2han’s 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x … ad infinitum would still be equal to 1 isn’t an unfair criticism. Christians are declaring not only a personal relationship with God but participation in the Godhead.

Christ in you remember… ?

Peace.