Trinity and logic

[Ragna]

No, I'm not criticizing it today. I'm going to try to defend the Holy Trinity. I have actually seen many defend its inconsistency, I'm not entirely sure I think like them. In fact, I had never really thought about the matter, but I'm going to present my point of view.

It basically claims that the Christian deity can express itself as three persons. Until here, no inconsistency (Deus est pater, filius et spiritus sanctus). Then it says that its constituents are not themselves (Pater non est filius, etc.).

For mortals like us, we have, or at least I have, the idea of "one head, one person", or at least, one brain (one mind) one person. It gets really curious with siamese twins. If two bodies are joined by the back, or the thorax, I'd consider them two separate persons. But, if there's only one brain (like one baby I heard of with 2 faces, and probably there are babies out there with two fused skulls), I'd consider them 1 person in two bodies.

Now, what do we mean that God is a person, or three? Certainly such a great being doesn't have a normal brain, but we can agree He has some abstract center we can refer to as "mind", where He (or She, or It) forms His judgements, takes His decisions (assume for the sake of argument).

Take for example animals with simpler nervous systems, a fly. It has a cerebral ganglion which is more or less like a brain, but it's not really as important as in humans, and it has also other (less important) ganglia through its body (if you're wondering, that's the reason why beheaded cockroaches can go on living for a while).

So what is all this about? The reason why we consider parts or expressions of our being not different persons, like a leg, or an arm, is because they can't form "minds". But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God". That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

All this with the minor detail that they're independent and even chronologically independent, but hey, He's omnipotent.

Do I believe all this to be true? Not at all.

Is it internally inconsistent? That's the question for debate. Feel free to criticize my approach.

Also, an additional question for Trinitarian theists. What is the exact difference between God the Father and God Himself? I don't understand that part very well. Don't they manifest essentially the same, with the same roles?

[AquinasD]

Also, an additional question for Trinitarian theists. What is the exact difference between God the Father and God Himself? I don't understand that part very well. Don't they manifest essentially the same, with the same roles?

There is no "God Himself" who is independent of the persons. All three persons are God. God the Father is ontologically prior, but He is not "the true God" of whom the other persons are additional projections, but merely one of the persons that forms the Godhead.

I've always thought we need some different logic to speak of the Triune God, where identity is something more paraconsistent, much as we simply adopt different rules about numbers in order to speak about infinities.

[Zzyzx]

.
My "Other" vote explained:

The "trinity" exists as a concept that allows polytheism to masquerade as monotheism. Jesus cannot be shown to be anything more than a human preacher who was "deified" by followers in their later stories and "quotations". However, the Jewish "god" was retained in the new splinter group religion which broke away from Judaism (perhaps somewhat similar to Protestantism breaking away from Catholicism and retaining some of its beliefs, rejecting some, and adding or modifying dogma).

Since polytheism had fallen out of favor, "creative theology" could produce a three-in-one "god" to retain an appearance of monotheism.

Non-Trinitarian Christianity, it seems to me, must reject or redefine "god the father" or "Jesus the son god", and "the holy spirit" (whatever that might mean) if all three characters are to remain key figures in dogma / theology. Perhaps someone can correct or clarify???

[hatsoff]

No, I'm not criticizing it today. I'm going to try to defend the Holy Trinity. I have actually seen many defend its inconsistency, I'm not entirely sure I think like them. In fact, I had never really thought about the matter, but I'm going to present my point of view.

It basically claims that the Christian deity can express itself as three persons. Until here, no inconsistency (Deus est pater, filius et spiritus sanctus). Then it says that its constituents are not themselves (Pater non est filius, etc.).

For mortals like us, we have, or at least I have, the idea of "one head, one person", or at least, one brain (one mind) one person. It gets really curious with siamese twins. If two bodies are joined by the back, or the thorax, I'd consider them two separate persons. But, if there's only one brain (like one baby I heard of with 2 faces, and probably there are babies out there with two fused skulls), I'd consider them 1 person in two bodies.

Now, what do we mean that God is a person, or three? Certainly such a great being doesn't have a normal brain, but we can agree He has some abstract center we can refer to as "mind", where He (or She, or It) forms His judgements, takes His decisions (assume for the sake of argument).

Take for example animals with simpler nervous systems, a fly. It has a cerebral ganglion which is more or less like a brain, but it's not really as important as in humans, and it has also other (less important) ganglia through its body (if you're wondering, that's the reason why beheaded cockroaches can go on living for a while).

So what is all this about? The reason why we consider parts or expressions of our being not different persons, like a leg, or an arm, is because they can't form "minds". But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God". That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

All this with the minor detail that they're independent and even chronologically independent, but hey, He's omnipotent.

Do I believe all this to be true? Not at all.

Is it internally inconsistent? That's the question for debate. Feel free to criticize my approach.

Also, an additional question for Trinitarian theists. What is the exact difference between God the Father and God Himself? I don't understand that part very well. Don't they manifest essentially the same, with the same roles?

What you describe seems coherent, but I have never heard a Christian describe the Trinity in those terms. In particular, I have never heard a Christian, either modern or ancient, claim that each person of the Godhead has anything like a distinct mind from the others, even minds which at a higher level work in tandem.

In my experience, Christians generally take one of two approaches: First, they might insist that the trinity is a "paradox," which is just a nice way to say that it's incoherent. These are the Christians who insist that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, but that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, etc.---i.e. they deny the transitivity of identity. Second, they might avoid this inconsistency by claiming that the Trinity is a "mystery." On this view, there are things we can say about God---e.g. that he is one substance in three persons---but we can never really capture the meaning of these things we are permitted to say. For these Christians, the Trinity becomes vacuous. Given that we don't know the meaning of the words we use, we might as well not say anything.

So, your illustration shows that we can endow Trinitarian language with coherent meaning. However, Christians are unlikely to accept that meaning.

That said, it's an interesting suggestion, and I thank you for sharing it.

[Ragna]

So, your illustration shows that we can endow Trinitarian language with coherent meaning. However, Christians are unlikely to accept that meaning.

That said, it's an interesting suggestion, and I thank you for sharing it.

Basically, those are the two options I've heard too. In this view in particular I insisted in their relative unrelatedness because one of the reasons I've seen it criticized (by other theists as well, from different religions) is that Jesus had flaws common to a mortal person (not being omniscient, etc) which could maybe be explained this way.

[Ragna]

There is no "God Himself" who is independent of the persons. All three persons are God. God the Father is ontologically prior, but He is not "the true God" of whom the other persons are additional projections, but merely one of the persons that forms the Godhead.

If God is omnipotent, there should be a "default state" he could manifest himself with. If this state is God the father, as you seem to suggest by "ontologically prior", does that mean that we have an unbalanced Trinity? Is God the father more "basic, important, powerful"? This reminds me to another point - once somebody raised the question that if man had not fallen, then there would be no Trinity, right?

[andrewk]

One of the (many) really joyous things about becoming a nonbeliever is that you no longer have to torture your poor brain trying to rationalise self-contradictory concepts like the trinity. That doctrine always troubled me when I was a Christian and yet, because the Church said it's so important, it didn't seem acceptable to just leave it in the mystery category. That it didn't make sense seemed a serious problem that, at its worst, even seemed to threaten one's prospects of salvation ("If I can't get comfortable with the concept, there must be something wrong with me").

A nonbeliever has the exhilarating freedom to say "Yes, it doesn't make sense. That's because it's probably a lot of nonsense, and I'm very glad that I'm not obliged to believe it.":D

Transsubstantiation is very similar in this respect. If there's a thread on that anywhere here, I'd love to read it.

[Ragna]

One of the (many) really joyous things about becoming a nonbeliever is that you no longer have to torture your poor brain trying to rationalise self-contradictory concepts like the trinity. That doctrine always troubled me when I was a Christian and yet, because the Church said it's so important, it didn't seem acceptable to just leave it in the mystery category. That it didn't make sense seemed a serious problem that, at its worst, even seemed to threaten one's prospects of salvation ("If I can't get comfortable with the concept, there must be something wrong with me").

A nonbeliever has the exhilarating freedom to say "Yes, it doesn't make sense. That's because it's probably a lot of nonsense, and I'm very glad that I'm not obliged to believe it.":D

Transsubstantiation is very similar in this respect. If there's a thread on that anywhere here, I'd love to read it.

Well, I am a non-believer and tried to make sense of the Trinity. Just gave it a chance how it could be internally coherent. Hmm, I don't know about transsubstantiation, that always looked awkward to me.

[TomD]

Hi Ragna —

It basically claims that the Christian deity can express itself as three persons.

The Doctrine of the Trinity describes not so much who/what God is, that is impossible as who can fathom the totality of the Deity, but rather God in relation to man, and the manner of God's self-disclosure to man.

Having said that, it's not quite as you say, as this would imply a deity that is separate from the persons, so it implies a fourth (Meister Eckhart got into sticky waters on this point).
Also, a single deity expressing itself through multiple means is an error we call 'modalism', in that it implies one God in three modes of being (the old analogy of water/ice/steam is also an error).

Then it says that its constituents are not themselves ...

I think you've read that wrong? What the doctrine says is that there are Three Persons, who are distinct from each other.

For mortals like us, we have, or at least I have, the idea of "one head, one person", or at least, one brain (one mind) one person.

One point to remember is we are not talking about a human, or indeed any orther created nature, so the 'rules' do not necessarily apply.
Another point is that whatever we say can only ever be analogous, as we lack both the language and the intellect to comprehend the deity in its entirely.
A third point is, if you want to get really, really involved, I can give you a view from Catholic 'deep theology', and then your head will really spin!

There used to be a scifi prog. on TV called "Lexx'', and I found 'the ten rules of Lexx' on a website. One of the rules was 'there will be no superior alien species in Lexx' and the reason was, how could a scriptwriter logically imagine what an utterly superior species might do or say?

Now, what do we mean that God is a person, or three? Certainly such a great being doesn't have a normal brain, but we can agree He has some abstract center we can refer to as "mind", where He (or She, or It) forms His judgements, takes His decisions (assume for the sake of argument).

Yes we can, as an analogy, and St Augustine did that, marvellously ... but do remember the mind is one, but is 'present', as mind, through its energies, eg the will, the intellect, memory, etc...

But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God".

It's an appealing analogy, and close to what Eckhart was talking about with his "Ground of Being", but it does set up a number of paradoxes:
1) There is no 'ultimate centre' anterior to the Trinity
2) There is no 'greater being' of whom the Trinity are aspects or manifestations

That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

Oooh, no, no, no. This would render the Trinity as determinate, relative and contingent beings, not gods at all, and certainly not God.

All this with the minor detail that they're independent and even chronologically independent, but hey, He's omnipotent.

They are most certainly not chronologically independent, and essentially not independent at all.

Do I believe all this to be true? Not at all.

Good for you!

Is it internally inconsistent? That's the question for debate. Feel free to criticize my approach.

Sadly, it's not consistent with regard to the Trinity of Christianity.

Also, an additional question for Trinitarian theists. What is the exact difference between God the Father and God Himself? I don't understand that part very well. Don't they manifest essentially the same, with the same roles?

I implied above I~ could make this more complex for you, if you wish ... let me demonstrate, by re-presenting your question:
What is the exact difference between God the Father and God Himself?
What is the exact difference between God the Son and God Himself?
What is the exact difference between God the Holy Spirit and God Himself?
Answer: None.
God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... the Trinity is One God, not Three Gods.

What is the exact difference between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?
The difference(s) are exterior, and purely relational. For example, take Jim ... he's a son (obviously), but is he a father, a husband? He can enter into any number of relations, without in any way effecting his substantial nature as a being.

The point is, the way we see the Persons, as Father, Son or Spirit, does not effect them essentially, but rather 'locates' them in an external relationship.

An analogy
Here I am;
I am aware that I am Here
We could posit two 'persons' — there is the person that is here, and there is that person's self awareness of her/himself — this is in some small way like the Father/Son relation.

God is.
God knows that He is.

So we can say God says "I am" — indeed, this is how God declares Himself when Moses asks the question, 'who shall I say is talking?'

But then we get caught up in the subject/object relation, because to say 'I am' the speaking subject (me) has to have in mind the object ('me') which is referred to as 'I' ... anyway ...

Can we just accept for the moment that God is, and God says 'I am"?
Then that which is, must be prior to that of which says "I am", in the same way that your reflection must be in the mirror before you say "that's me."

So we have God's isness, and His knowledge of His isness ... the first we call Father, the second we call Son. The Son is second not in any successive sense, for God's isness and His self-knowledge are aeternal, there was never a time, nor ever a state, when God is, but did not know that He is. But we can logically say (even though it's not true) that God's being must be prior to His knowledge of His being, we can say it only because the way we have constructed 'logic' insists that we must.

But the point is, if you begin to look at the distinction between Father and Son in this way, then you have started to get a purchase on the problem. So the Son would logically say "I and the Father are one" because God's knowledge of Himself is the same as Himself (whereas our self-knowledge of ourselves can be radically different to what and who we actually are), but the Son can also say "the Father is greater than I" because God had to be before He could know Himself. Again, when the Son says "everything has been given me by my Father" or "he who sees me see the Father" ...

God bless,

Thomas

[Flail]

Ragna wrote:

It basically claims that the Christian deity can express itself as three persons.

How in the world would anyone know that?

Having 'faith' as to invented things is a fools game.