Why the Trinity?

[jochoa]

The real question is whether or not the desire to create could have been otherwise.

Fair enough. Do you believe your God is free to desire or forced to desire?

My God is All-Powerful, therefore is free to desire.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

If you are interested in some new ideas on why the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

• The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao (see book cover); involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

The real question is whether or not the desire

to create could have been otherwise

Fair enough. Do you believe your God is free to desire or forced to desire?

My God is All-Powerful, therefore is free to desire.

Let me make a small modification to my previous comment: “The real question is whether or not the intention to create could have been otherwise.”

 

[jochoa]

Let me make a small modification to my previous comment: “The real question is whether or not the intention to create could have been otherwise.”

I perceive you as essentially asking: Can God be something God is not? I still say: Being all-powerful, God can do whatever God wants. As an example of God using His power to be something God is not, consider that man is not God, yet God became man.
I found the better question to be why would God become something God is not?
Thankfully, in Her Wisdom, Catholicism shares the solution: “For [God] became man, so that we might become God.”

Thanks for the very interesting food for thought! I still look forward to hearing your understanding of the reason why God is the Holy Trinity.

 

[Counterpoint]

I perceive you as essentially asking: Can God be something God is not?

I am asking “whether or not the intention to create could have been otherwise.”

Thanks for the very interesting food for thought! I still look forward to hearing your understanding of the reason why God is the Holy Trinity.

I have already provided my reason. God’s self-actualization is a dialectical or trinitarian process.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one’s living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[33] (source: Wikipedia: Dialectic)

 

[Counterpoint]

I perceive you as essentially asking: Can God be something God is not?

You ask: “Can God be something God is not?”

Well, if God is “being” itself (ipsum esse), then this would require that God cease being (or “not being”). (This is the first stage of the dialectical process.)

“To be or not to be. That is the question.” - Shakespeare

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

Might as well ask why there is one God only.

God is a mystery. Whether God is unitarian or trinitarian makes no difference.

God is still a mystery that the mind of a philosopher cannot fathom without the help of revealed theology. What God wants us to know will be revealed to us, even so complex a mystery as the Trinity.

 

[Counterpoint]

Might as well ask why there is one God only.

God is a mystery. Whether God is unitarian or trinitarian makes no difference.

God is still a mystery that the mind of a philosopher cannot fathom without the help of revealed theology. What God wants us to know will be revealed to us, even so complex a mystery as the Trinity.

Why is there one God only? Answer: Because, according to Thomistic metaphysics, there can be only one being whose essence and existence are identical.

What you’re proposing is technically known as “fideism” - a view that Catholicism rejects.

“Catholic doctrine rejects fideism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, representing Catholicism’s great regard for Thomism, the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, affirms that it is a Catholic doctrine that God’s existence can indeed be demonstrated by reason.” (source: Wikipedia: Fideism)

 

[VincentChristop]

body mind spirit
father son holyspirit
father mother child
truth knowledge understanding
red blue yellow
moon sun earth

A lot of things are understood through 3 resources

 

[Counterpoint]

body mind spirit
father son holyspirit
father mother child
truth knowledge understanding
red blue yellow
moon sun earth

A lot of things are understood through 3 resources

As I see it, you only put forth two valid and explanatory “threesomes”: the “father, mother, and child” threesome and the “red, green, and blue” one.

 

[tonyrey]

As I see it, you only put forth two valid and explanatory “threesomes”: the “father, mother, and child” threesome and the “red, green, and blue” one.

How about thesis, antithesis and synthesis?

 

[Counterpoint]

How about thesis, antithesis and synthesis?

I have already argued that God’s self-actualization is a dialectical process.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one’s living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[33] (Wikipedia: Dialectic)

 

[jochoa]

I am asking “whether or not the intention to create could have been otherwise.”

Once again, since God is all-powerful, God can choose whether or not the intention to create could have been otherwise.

I have already provided my reason. God’s self-actualization is a dialectical or trinitarian process.

Thanks for sharing! I find it to be a neat understanding from human perspective, however, I find it doesn’t resolve to God being three distinct persons. Instead, dialectal process seems to posit three different aspects of the revelation of God to others, which although seems accurate to me in terms of revelation, does not personally satisfy “Why God is three distinct persons.” More so, it seems to me that dialectical process makes God, the Trinity unholy, because based on order: Being would be compared to the Father, Nothing would be compared to the Son, and Becoming would be compared to the Holy Spirit.

What you’re proposing is technically known as “fideism” - a view that Catholicism rejects.

While Charlemagne may or may not recognize that God’s existence can known by human reason alone, I believe Charlemagne is stating that God’s Trinitarian being cannot be understood by human reason alone. Therefore, Charlemagne would not be proposing “fideism.” Yes, the Church recognizes that God’s existence can be known by human reason alone. However, The Church confirms Charlemagne’s point that only through reason of divinely revealed knowledge can the Mystery of The Holy Trinity be known.

Thanks for the interesting discussion! I look forward to more!

 

[mackbrislawn]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

Yes, at first blush the Trinity idea does seem odd. That is, why not a singular, lone figure, like Allah? But when you think about it, now that the Trinity has been revealed, we realize that God cannot exist any other way. A simple look at Creation and at science demonstrations the necessity of the triune God. It is this way: God is a force, obviously enough, and in physics we learn that forces always come in pairs; that is,there is no such thing as a lone force. A lone, singular force simply does not exist. This is expressed in Newton’s Law: for every action there is an equal reaction. For every force there is an equal counter force. The Father is action, and the Son is reaction. The Father is force, and the Son is the equal counterforce.

Therefore, the relation of the Father and the Son is exemplified by Newton’s Law of action and reaction. Action is father to reaction. “The Son does only what the Father does.” Well, reaction can only do what action does! Action cannot be without reaction, and Father cannot be without Son!

What about the Holy Spirit? Well, the above example is the static case, but of course God is not static, but dynamic. “And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” God is motion, the Spirit is motion, so the Spirit corresponds to the motion, or acceleration produced from the interaction of the Father and the Son, as in Newton’s Law: acceleration equals mass/force. Just as with a rocket, the action and reaction together result in the rocket’s acceleration. (The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which makes sense when we consider what the Holy Spirit is.)

(As an aside, I think this shows that the filioque, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is correct.)

 

[Counterpoint]

Once again, since God is all-powerful, God can choose whether or not the intention to create could have been otherwise.

You’re making an regress argument. (Divine omnipotence cannot logically resolve something that has no logical resolution.)

Thanks for sharing! I find it to be a neat understanding from human perspective, however, I find it doesn’t resolve to God being three distinct persons. Instead, dialectal process seems to posit three different aspects of the revelation of God to others, which although seems accurate to me in terms of revelation, does not personally satisfy “Why God is three distinct persons.” More so, it seems to me that dialectical process makes God, the Trinity unholy, because based on order: Being would be compared to the Father, Nothing would be compared to the Son, and Becoming would be compared to the Holy Spirit.

“Being” and “not-being” (or “nothingness”) are simultaneously the same yet different. This is paradoxical (but not necessarily contradictory).

Let’s express the dialectic in different terms. The following aphorism succinctly expresses the dialectic in terms of love.

“Love separates for the sake of union.” - Rumi

What’s the thesis? Answer: love

What’s the antithesis? Answer: the separation between “lover” and “beloved”

What’s the synthesis? Answer: the union between “lover” and “beloved”

Saint Augustine described the trinity (the threesome) as the lover, the beloved, and the love that binds them together.

"But wisdom is equal to the Father, as we have proved; so the Holy Spirit is equal too, and if equal, equal in every respect, on account of the total simplicity which belongs to that substance. And therefore there are no more than three; one [the Father] loving him [the Son] who is from him [the Father], and loving him [the Father] from whom he [the Son] is, and love itself [the Holy Spirit]. If this is not anything, how is it that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)? (source: pg. 211 BookVI, Chapter1, “The Trinity” by Saint Augustine, edited by John E. Rotelle)

While Charlemagne may or may not recognize that God’s existence can known by human reason alone, I believe Charlemagne is stating that God’s Trinitarian being cannot be understood by human reason alone. Therefore, Charlemagne would not be proposing “fideism.” Yes, the Church recognizes that God’s existence can be known by human reason alone. However, The Church confirms Charlemagne’s point that only through reason of divinely revealed knowledge can the Mystery of The Holy Trinity be known.

The Apostle Paul holds that we can know the invisible things of the eternal Godhead from things that are clearly seen.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” Romans 1:20

 

[Counterpoint]

Yes, at first blush the Trinity idea does seem odd. That is, why not a singular, lone figure, like Allah? But when you think about it, now that the Trinity has been revealed, we realize that God cannot exist any other way. A simple look at Creation and at science demonstrations the necessity of the triune God. It is this way: God is a force, obviously enough, and in physics we learn that forces always come in pairs; that is,there is no such thing as a lone force. A lone, singular force simply does not exist. This is expressed in Newton’s Law: for every action there is an equal reaction. For every force there is an equal counter force. The Father is action, and the Son is reaction. The Father is force, and the Son is the equal counterforce.

Therefore, the relation of the Father and the Son is exemplified by Newton’s Law of action and reaction. Action is father to reaction. “The Son does only what the Father does.” Well, reaction can only do what action does! Action cannot be without reaction, and Father cannot be without Son!

The Father can also be thought of as the “cause” and the Son the “effect.”

What about the Holy Spirit? Well, the above example is the static case, but of course God is not static, but dynamic.

Action and reaction are dynamic, not static.

“And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” God is motion, the Spirit is motion, so the Spirit corresponds to the motion, or acceleration produced from the interaction of the Father and the Son, as in Newton’s Law: acceleration equals mass/force. Just as with a rocket, the action and reaction together result in the rocket’s acceleration. (The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which makes sense when we consider what the Holy Spirit is.)

(As an aside, I think this shows that the filioque, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is correct.)

May the Force be with you.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Father can also be thought of as the “cause” and the Son the “effect.”

Action and reaction are dynamic, not static.

May the Force be with you.

And with you!

However, maybe it is the Holy Spirit that is the effect. What do you think?

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

I have already argued that God’s self-actualization is a dialectical process.

In general, thesis and antithesis may be reconciled in synthesis, unity and plurality are combined in totality, form and substance are conjoined in mutual existence, etc. Likewise, the extremes of theology and physics – God and not-God – may both be true explanations of the cosmos, when looked at from different points of view. Similarly, the Neo-Confucian Tao or “Great Way” harmonizes the opposites of yin and yang, and the Buddhist “Middle Path” avoids the existential extremes of neither being, nor not-being.

 “Everything exists: That is one extreme. Everything does not exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata (Buddha) teaches the Dharma via the middle.” Samyutta Nikaya (SN 12.15), Kaccayanagotta Sutta: On Right View – translated by Thanissaro Bhikku.

The Middle Way is the noble eightfold path to Nirvana. In the Itivuttaka Sutta (Iti 44 – Nibbana), Buddha calls Nirvana consciousness “the unconditioned state.”

 “Bhikkus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned.” Majjhima Nikaya (M 119), Kayagatasati Sutta, Satipatthana  – translated from the Pali by Piya Tan. 

 “Among what is unconditioned, Nirvana is the highest to reach.” With Buddha. CNP (Catukka Nipata Pali).

Ultimately, nothing can be said about the unconditioned without to some extent conditioning or qualifying the “unqualified.” This is why Buddhists sometimes refer to the “unconditioned state” as emptiness or nothingness. Often, Buddhists and Christians get around this metaphysical paradox by way of the “via negativa.” For example, the Middle may be said to be neither being nor non-being, but becoming; neither the one same nor the many other, but the essence of all; neither absolutely infinite nor absolutely finite, but absonite. Similarly, the Christian Holy Spirit is said to be neither the spirit of the Father, nor the spirit of the Son, but the glorified Absonite Spirit which “proceeds” from both.

In general, the Middle Path to the Unconditioned or Tao (Great Way) of the Spirit is neither thesis nor antithesis, but their transformed, transcendental/experiential consummate synthesis; neither one nor many, but all; neither condition nor conditioned, but unconditioned, neither differentiator nor differentiated, but undifferentiated.”

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

For more details, please see my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[tonyrey]

*How about thesis, antithesis and synthesis? *

Then it is a “threesome”.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one’s living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[33] (Wikipedia: Dialectic)

The analogy of life and death is inappropriate for Being because it fails to account for the origin of Being nor does it follow that Being is finite. Physical reality is an unreliable guide to the nature of spiritual reality.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The Father can also be thought of as the “cause” and the Son the “effect.”

Action and reaction are dynamic, not static.

May the Force be with you.

If there would be any “cause” and/or any “effect” in the Trinity than the Trinity would not be.

The ONLY way that the Trinity Is the Trinity is if the Trinity always was, is and will be the Trinity.

This is my opinion and I am not stating that this is a fact or not but I believe, firmly believe, that no one, except God, can “prove” that God Is a Trinity.