Trinitarian classical theism - special pleading?

[21Dec17]

I’m considering converting to Christianity, but I have one major problem with the trinity. Most criticisms of the trinity are unwarranted and invalid. However…

In his ‘5 Proofs For The Existence of God’ Edward Feser writes in his Aristotelian Proof that there can only be one thing that is purely actual (with no potentialities), because if there were more than one there would have to be a way to distinguish them - and he writes that this is impossible because that would require a potential to be actualised.

I think he is correct here.

But now I want to apply this to each member of the trinity. The Catholic Church makes it clear that the Father is not the Son or Holy spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. While members of the same being, they are distinguishable.

The problem with this is that none of the members of the trinity have any potentialities. Each of them is purely actual.

Therefore, it is special pleading to say that there can be only one purely actual being, but yet more than one purely actual member of God.

(Edit: even if we say that each member of the trinity “is not” the other members in a sense that we cannot grasp, then even this does not make the case different from the case of whether there can be more than one thing that is purely actual - as mystery can be applied to both cases.)

 

[Vico]

…

The Trinity is three persons without change. There is absolute simplicity in the Trinity. Relations are predicated relatively so do not import composition in that of which they are predicated. The relations subsist in the divine being but do not derive from it. It they were derived then the divine being would be source.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.” – Summa Theologiae Ia. Q.39 A.1

Modern Catholic Dictionary

Perichoresis

Definition

• The penetration and indwelling of the three divine persons reciprocally in one another. In the Greek conception of the Trinity there is an emphasis on the mutual penetration of the three persons, thus bringing out the unity of the divine essence. In the Latin idea called circumincession the stress is more on the internal processions of the three divine persons. In both traditions, however, the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God.
• The term is also applied to the close union of the two natures in Christ. Although the power that unites the two natures proceeds exclusively from Christ’s divinity, the result is a most intimate coalescence. The Godhead, which itself is impenetrable, penetrates the humanity, which is thereby deified without ceasing to be perfectly human.

 

[21Dec17]

Relations are predicated relatively so do not import composition in that of which they are predicated.

Then there is the potentiality of the relativity of each member to another.

The Trinity is three persons without change.

When I say potentiality, I do not mean in the sense of change.

Edit: even if the relativity is a Cambridge property (therefore not importing anything), you still need distinction. A consequence of all of this is that you can have many copies of the same God that are relative to one another: a form of polytheism.

 

[21Dec17]

Okay, here’s where I think I might be going wrong.

Pure actuality = God.

God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit - inseparably.

While each individual member is God, he does not equal God (as the person alone is not all the members of the being). This statement is key.

How does one know if a kind of Cambridge property can be applied to each person of the trinity in a way that it cannot apply to God as a being? Through revelation.

 

[JimG]

The Persons of the Trinity are not separate Beings. There is only one God. The Persons are distinct persons, each possessing wholly the single, one, divine Nature.

 

[21Dec17]

The Persons of the Trinity are not separate Beings.

I think you may have misunderstood me when I said…

A consequence of all of this is that you can have many copies of the same God that are relative to one another: a form of polytheism.

 

[Vico]

…
Edit: even if the relativity is a Cambridge property (therefore not importing anything), you still need distinction. A consequence of all of this is that you can have many copies of the same God that are relative to one another: a form of polytheism.

No, there is no divine universal and the relations are essential. God is absolutely simple. The analogy of genus or species cannot properly be applied to the Trinity since it contradicts the doctrine of divine simplicity. Because of this Aquinas states as posted before: “But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking;”

 

[21Dec17]

Here’s an interesting equation.

A true trichotomy: actuality/ potentiality (including actialized potentials)/ nothing.

God = actuality

Does God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

While each individual member would be God, he would not equal God (as the person alone is not all the members of the being) - see Edward Feser: Trinity Sunday

x member of the trinity =/= God

Therefore, x member of the trinity =/= actuality

x member of the trinity =/= potentiality

Therefore, x member of the trinity = nothing.

Therefore, God has no members of a trinity.

 

[21Dec17]

Here’s an interesting equation.

A true trichotomy: actuality/ potentiality (including actialized potentials)/ nothing.

God = actuality

Does God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

While each individual member would be God, he would not equal God (as the person alone is not all the members of the being) - see Edward Feser: Trinity Sunday

x member of the trinity =/= God

Therefore, x member of the trinity =/= actuality

x member of the trinity =/= potentiality

Therefore, x member of the trinity = nothing.

Therefore, God has no members of a trinity.

Okay, I said something stupid. Nothing equals potentiality. Things only fall under it. A member of the trinity can fall under God. I retract my silly equation.

 

[21Dec17]

Here is my revised logic.

God = pure actuality = having no potentiality

Despite what is claimed, would x member of the trinity have any potentialities to distinguish him from another member?

While x member of the trinity “is” God, x member of the trinity does not equal God (as the person alone is not all the members of the being) - see Edward Feser: Trinity Sunday

So, x member of the trinity =/= God

Therefore, x member of the trinity =/= having no potentiality

Therefore, as God does not have potentialities, God does not have three members of a trinity.

Edit: even if you modify the equation to instead say x member of the trinity =/= the essence (rather than saying x member =/= God), then one only needs to add this…

God’s essence = existence (as argued by Aquinas) = having no potentiality

x member of the trinity =/= God’s essence

Therefore, x member of the trinity =/= having no potentiality

Edit: even if one objects that x member does not need to equal God, as it is claimed that x member is God, I only need to emphasise that Aquinas argued that for something to not be created, it must BE IDENTICAL TO existence.