Why must God be only three persons?

[PumpkinCookie]

You are right. And the Revelation by God of HImself is not philosophy either. Neither is it “empty assertion”.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. 20Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? 21For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. I Cor 1

Pumpkin, there were wise philosophers, debaters and those full of worldly wisdom (science) when Jesus walked the earth also. The position you are taking is nothing new. People have been doing it from the day this passage was written to the present. What has been revealed by God to us will seem like follishness and “empty assertion” to those who are perishing.

Sorry Della, that is not an acceptable answer. :crying:

It is not based on human reason, philosphy, or science, so it is just “empty speculation and assumption”.

You really don’t get it do you? You are conflating “God revealed” with “My opinion about what God revealed.”

To me, God revealed that he is one. To a billion + Muslims, Jews, Bahais, Unitarians, and others, the same.

Me: God revealed himself as one.
You: God revealed himself as three.
Me: Why must he be three?
You: Because he said so.
Me: No, he didn’t, he revealed himself as one.
You: No, he revealed himself as three.

Bored yet? This is a pointless conversation we’re having. You can assert your revelation, and I can assert mine, and we can continue to talk past each other and accomplish absolutely nothing. You view my assertion as empty, and I view yours similarly.

Let’s try to produce wisdom instead. You know what we can agree on to find that wisdom? Reason.

I’ll take the first step. I think there is no way to limit the number of persons of God, given Christianity, because there doesn’t appear to be any direct and clear negation of the concept of as-of-yet un-revealed or undeveloped persons of God in the tradition.

I think you’ll agree on this point, and then point to your specific understanding of the tradition as a negation, and we’ll be back to step 4 of the pointless conversation and the circle spins round yet again.

So, we must conclude that the answer to the OP’s question is: there is no reason why.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Except that there’s a fatal flaw to your reasoning: God has said what we assert, but He hasn’t said what you’re asserting. So, you can play Mad-libs all you want… but that doesn’t make your claim rise to the level of Divine Revelation.

Except that there’s a fatal flaw to your reasoning: God has said what we assert, but He hasn’t said what you’re asserting. So, you can play Mad-libs all you want… but that doesn’t make your claim rise to the level of Divine Revelation.

Right back atchya

LOL I don’t even need to mad-lib this one, it works perfectly (ie “not at all”) as-is.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Providing an analogy is not changing the subject.

Ok let’s discuss:
There is good reason to suppose that God is Triune.
I gave mine here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13642742&postcount=150

What do you think?
God is love, can’t be only 1 person and be love.
God is simple, he is not an orgy.
God is fruitful, Holy Spirit.
3.
More than 3 and God wouldn’t be simple. If God was only 2 he wouldn’t be fruitful in the Spirit. If he was only 1 he couldn’t be love.
That’s the reasoning.
What do you think? You might disagree but it’s pretty hard to refute the reason behind it.

The triune God is also an article of faith. Faith illumines reason. Without some kind of faith you have no reason.

OK, I need to give you credit for attempting to answer the OP’s question. Thank you!

Here is a list of assumptions one must accept in order for your reasoning to hold:

God is love
One person can’t be a “lover”
God is not an orgy
God is fruitful (in himself)
anything < 3 is “simple”
2 things together aren’t “fruitful”

Can you see how your reasoning is almost entirely based on assumptions? I can agree that “God is simple” if he never changes, is completely perfect, and is absolutely singular. I think that it can be supported by reason, however many people would consider that to be an assumption as well.

It is entirely possible for God not to be love.
It’s entirely possible that one person can be a lover.
It’s entirely possible God could be an orgy
It’s entirely possible God’s interior fruitfulness could spawn an infinity of persons of God.
It’s odd to consider 2 or 3 to be simple, but not 4 or 1,000.

 

[guanophore]

“Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4" is quoting scripture!

Thank you, tonyrey for reinforcing my point. For Catholics, Scripture is one of the basic foundations of Truth. The development of doctrines such as the Trinity rely upon it as a primary Source. Since it has been excluded as a reliable and verifiable source, it gets relegated to “assumptions” or “speculations”.

There has been a strong call, indeed the assignment of “mission” to collect and present the “proofs” of reasoning behind the concept. This would be an exercise in futility, since one of the prime sources has already been relegated to uselessness in the context of the discussion.

scriptures… However, I think the basic morality makes sense, and I have an intuition about the existence of a divine being.

Idolatry harms us.
Murder harms us.
Lies harm us.
Covetousness harms us.
Cruelty to animals and the environment harms us.
Malformed sexual relationships harm us.

Is that a shaky foundation? Absolutely.

No, Pumpkin. There are many ways of knowing, and those that are beyond the purview of experimental science do not lack a strong foundation. Your observation about human intuition, for example, is a lived experience of persons. It is difficult to analyze with science, but that does not negate it’s reality and validity.

Your observations about the consequences of certain choices and actions are also accurate, even outside the realm of religion/spirituality, one is still faced with a need to explain these sequalae of human choices.

This is why I don’t attempt to convert others or evangelize for my beliefs. I do not think God punishes us for having incorrect beliefs, so I have no motivation and I have no grounds.

I could always become an atheist if I become convinced that I have no good reasons for believing. You may think I have no good reasons for believing, but they’re good enough for me, for now.

I have a broader concept of “reason” that allows for ways of knowing and deciding that extend beyond the scientific method.

Exactly, I am highlighting the pointlessness of throwing scriptures to and fro. Anyone can do it, and it proves nothing.

In general I agree with you, since it is our perceptions and how we choose to apply what we are reading that lead our conclusions.

But Scripture itself, as you have noted about the Torah, is the reflection of the belief of a people held for thousands of years. As such, it is a valuable historiacal artifact that can be regarded as a “fact”. It is also one of the premises used for the foundation of doctrine, so if we are going to have any intelligent discussion about the “reasoning” behind how a doctrine was developed, eliminating scripture from the equation stops he discussion before it has begun.

 

[guanophore]

 You really don't get it do you? You are conflating "God revealed" with "My opinion about what God revealed."

No, PC, it has nothing to do with me. These things were established long before I was ever a gleam in my father’s eye.

To me, God revealed that he is one. To a billion + Muslims, Jews, Bahais, Unitarians, and others, the same.

Me: God revealed himself as one.
You: God revealed himself as three.
Me: Why must he be three?
You: Because he said so.
Me: No, he didn’t, he revealed himself as one.
You: No, he revealed himself as three.

Bored yet? This is a pointless conversation we’re having. You can assert your revelation, and I can assert mine, and we can continue to talk past each other and accomplish absolutely nothing. You view my assertion as empty, and I view yours similarly.

Yes. There can be no other outcome, when the Sources for the reasoning behind the conclusion have previously relegated to that same status.

Let’s try to produce wisdom instead. You know what we can agree on to find that wisdom? Reason.

Yes, I would agree that reason can find wisdom. But I cannot agree that reason is the ONLY foundation for wisdom. It excludes other ways of knowing that extend beyond human reason.

I’ll take the first step. I think there is no way to limit the number of persons of God, given Christianity, because there doesn’t appear to be any direct and clear negation of the concept of as-of-yet un-revealed or undeveloped persons of God in the tradition.

I am confused, PC. Has this point not already been conceded repeatedly? Has it not been acknowledged sufficiently for you that your refusal to accept the clear negation allows you the right to speculate any number of members in your godhead?

I think you’ll agree on this point, and then point to your specific understanding of the tradition as a negation, and we’ll be back to step 4 of the pointless conversation and the circle spins round yet again.

How is it pointless if you won the argument?

So, we must conclude that the answer to the OP’s question is: there is no reason why.

Right. When certain essential sources of the reasonable conclusion are excluded, and “validity” can only scientific method, the limitations are profound, and we are restricted to conclusions such as this.

Except that there’s a fatal flaw to your reasoning: God has said what we assert, but He hasn’t said what you’re asserting. So, you can play Mad-libs all you want… but that doesn’t make your claim rise to the level of Divine Revelation.

Right. Rejection of the methods of the Church for arriving at doctrine are considered invalid, therefore Divine Revelation cannot be proved, therefore Divine Revelation does not exist, therefore there is no “reason” for the doctrine.

Now can you be happy you won the argument?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Thank you, tonyrey for reinforcing my point. For Catholics, Scripture is one of the basic foundations of Truth. The development of doctrines such as the Trinity rely upon it as a primary Source. Since it has been excluded as a reliable and verifiable source, it gets relegated to “assumptions” or “speculations”.

There has been a strong call, indeed the assignment of “mission” to collect and present the “proofs” of reasoning behind the concept. This would be an exercise in futility, since one of the prime sources has already been relegated to uselessness in the context of the discussion.

No, Pumpkin. There are many ways of knowing, and those that are beyond the purview of experimental science do not lack a strong foundation. Your observation about human intuition, for example, is a lived experience of persons. It is difficult to analyze with science, but that does not negate it’s reality and validity.

Your observations about the consequences of certain choices and actions are also accurate, even outside the realm of religion/spirituality, one is still faced with a need to explain these sequalae of human choices.

I have a broader concept of “reason” that allows for ways of knowing and deciding that extend beyond the scientific method.

In general I agree with you, since it is our perceptions and how we choose to apply what we are reading that lead our conclusions.

But Scripture itself, as you have noted about the Torah, is the reflection of the belief of a people held for thousands of years. As such, it is a valuable historiacal artifact that can be regarded as a “fact”. It is also one of the premises used for the foundation of doctrine, so if we are going to have any intelligent discussion about the “reasoning” behind how a doctrine was developed, eliminating scripture from the equation stops he discussion before it has begun.

I’m not advocating pure empiricism. I am willing to accept a priori reasoning as well. Your definition of what constitutes a “fact” is too broad. It includes all religious texts. They contradict one another. They can’t all be facts. This isn’t a scientific conclusion, but a reasonable one.

 

[clem456]

It is entirely possible for God not to be love.
It’s entirely possible that one person can be a lover.
It’s entirely possible God could be an orgy
It’s entirely possible God’s interior fruitfulness could spawn an infinity of persons of God.
It’s odd to consider 2 or 3 to be simple, but not 4 or 1,000.

What is your experience of love? How do you define it? What does it look like? Is it personal or is it just a word.

You say:

It’s entirely possible that one person can be a lover.

How is your assumption reasonable? In what conception of love is there only one person involved?

God’s fundamental identity is that he is love. A being who *is love *cannot be one person. Any discussion about his nature is nonsensical outside the reality that he is love.

 

[Della]

Sorry Della, that is not an acceptable answer. :crying:

It is not based on human reason, philosphy, or science, so it is just “empty speculation and assumption”.

Oh but it is. All persons reveal themselves as they believe themselves to be. That is reason and philosophy, my friend.

 

[Gorgias]

Except that there’s a fatal flaw to your reasoning: God has said what we assert, but He hasn’t said what you’re asserting. So, you can play Mad-libs all you want… but that doesn’t make your claim rise to the level of Divine Revelation.

Right back atchya

That would be really cute, if all you were asserting was Adonai ehad, but you’re not. You’re asserting that God could be a foursome or more.

So, my response to you is, “wait … He has? He’s asserted in Divine Revelation that he’s a foursome? OK… show me!”

LOL I don’t even need to mad-lib this one, it works perfectly (ie “not at all”) as-is.

Guanophore hit it right on the head: if you reject Christian Divine Revelation, then you have no standing to make an argument that bases itself on Christian Divine Revelation. Of course, if you wish, you can make an argument that Christian Divine Revelation isn’t internally consistent… but in order to make that argument, you have to remain within the context of that revelation and accept its premises (at least, within the context of the discussion).

So, it would seem you have two choices, if you wish to be rational: either you accept (for the sake of argument) Christian Divine Revelation and argue from that perspective, or you reject Christian Divine Revelation. If you take the former tack, then you will have to conclude that there is no room for further revelation (and therefore, God is a Trinity). If you take the latter tack, then you cannot argue against a Trinity (since you’ve already rejected the premise upon which it’s based, and therefore, have no grounds upon which to move your argument forward) – all you would be able to do is conclude “sorry, I disagree with you”.

Oh, there is a third option: you can be irrational, and just splash around in mud puddles and shout silly slogans.

Your choice.

 

[Della]

Since God has revealed himself as a triune being, then that is what he is. Just as a triangle cannot be described as anything other than three-sided, anything more or less than three sides makes it no longer a triangle but something else. The same with God’s self-revelation. Either he is who he says he is or he is something other than who he is, which is self-contradictory.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not advocating pure empiricism. I am willing to accept a priori reasoning as well. Your definition of what constitutes a “fact” is too broad. It includes all religious texts. They contradict one another. They can’t all be facts. This isn’t a scientific conclusion, but a reasonable one.

I don’t believe I offered any definition of “fact”.

I stated that the Torah is a valuable historical artifact that can be treated as a fact. That does not mean one need to subscribe to all the contents.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly, I am highlighting the pointlessness of throwing scriptures to and fro. Anyone can do it, and it proves nothing.

When scriptures correspond to the way civilised people live it is proof they are true. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, is accepted by anyone who has compassion for the afflicted.

 

[tonyrey]

For me, I accept it as a something without a full explanation. There is contradictory evidence in the archaeological and genetic record, but I am willing to believe that God revealed himself to the Jews. I don’t believe in a single Adam and Eve or a world-wide flood, I don’t believe the Exodus really happened, I don’t suppose Moses himself wrote the whole thing, etc. I suspect God is much bigger and deeper than his portrayal in some of the scriptures. However, I think the basic morality makes sense, and I have an intuition about the existence of a divine being.

Idolatry harms us.
Murder harms us.
Lies harm us.
Covetousness harms us.
Cruelty to animals and the environment harms us.
Malformed sexual relationships harm us.

Is that a shaky foundation? Absolutely. This is why I don’t attempt to convert others or evangelize for my beliefs. I do not think God punishes us for having incorrect beliefs, so I have no motivation and I have no grounds.

I could always become an atheist if I become convinced that I have no good reasons for believing. You may think I have no good reasons for believing, but they’re good enough for me, for now.

I don’t think God punishes us for having incorrect beliefs nor that you lack good reasons for believing In God and the Commandments. I do think excluding the teaching of Christ is a mistake which even an atheist like Richard Dawkins didn’t make…

 

[guanophore]

Exactly, I am highlighting the pointlessness of throwing scriptures to and fro. Anyone can do it, and it proves nothing.

This seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A Source of informatin is misapplied, so you just throw out the source? Have you not seen the same practice with statistics? Would you throw out statistics as method or useful tool, just because someone misused it?

Bored yet? This is a pointless conversation we’re having.

Yes, actually ths is one reason I avoid dialogue with atheists. Most of the subject matter seems boring to me. I am much more comfortable with accepting some fundamentals, then having dialogue about how they are applied.

You can assert your revelation, and I can assert mine, and we can continue to talk past each other and accomplish absolutely nothing. You view my assertion as empty, and I view yours similarly.

This is why, when we claim divine revelation as a valid Source of Truth, the discussion stalls. For Catholics, there are methods of determining what revelation is (validity) but for those who do not accept that Divine Revelation exists, or is a valid source, or can be vetted, it is a useless exercise.

Let’s try to produce wisdom instead. You know what we can agree on to find that wisdom? Reason.

Human reason is too limited a tool to effectively discuss theology.

The parameters used by the Church to “reason” with wisdom into doctrines like the Trinity include God’s Revelation of Himself. Since that Source has been rejected, I do not believe it is possibel to conduct a useful discussion.

So, we must conclude that the answer to the OP’s question is: there is no reason why.

Yes. Do you feel better now?