Is the Doctrine of Trinity a Logical Contradiction?

[McCulloch]

He [God] is not capable of instantiating logical contradictions. Why did you think He could? What did you take omnipotence to mean?

And yet Trinitarian Christians insist that God is a logical contradiction. There is one God. The Son of God is God. God the Father is God. But the Son is not the Father.

For one, Christians do not insist God is a logical contradiction. You might believe that the Trinity is a logical contradiction, but that is apart from it being the Christian's stated belief that God is a logical contradiction. Your objection here is completely irrelevant.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons (Greek: ὑποστάσεις): the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial (Greek: �μοο�σιοι). Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of one being (Greek: ο�σία). The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.

According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed describes Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".

Question for debate: Is the Doctrine of Trinity a Logical Contradiction?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

God is one entity, which eternally exists as three persons. A person does not equal an entity, but is a particular way that an entity can exists. So, an entity can exist as a person, as an object, as an idea, as a possibility. God is one entity who exists as three distinct persons, three distinct simultaneous modes.

In the film From Dusk Till Dawn, Cheech Marin plays three distinct roles: a border guard, a strip club doorman, and a guy named Carlos. Is that pretty much the same idea as the trinity or am I way off?

[Fides et Veritas]

God is one entity, which eternally exists as three persons. A person does not equal an entity, but is a particular way that an entity can exists. So, an entity can exist as a person, as an object, as an idea, as a possibility. God is one entity who exists as three distinct persons, three distinct simultaneous modes.

In the film From Dusk Till Dawn, Cheech Marin plays three distinct roles: a border guard, a strip club doorman, and a guy named Carlos. Is that pretty much the same idea as the trinity or am I way off?

Willing to risk a one liner reprimand but!! That was %(^$*^%( funny!!!!!!

[McCulloch]

God is one entity, which eternally exists as three persons. A person does not equal an entity, but is a particular way that an entity can exists. So, an entity can exist as a person, as an object, as an idea, as a possibility. God is one entity who exists as three distinct persons, three distinct simultaneous modes.

In the film From Dusk Till Dawn, Cheech Marin plays three distinct roles: a border guard, a strip club doorman, and a guy named Carlos. Is that pretty much the same idea as the trinity or am I way off?

Fuzzy, you are way off. In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. To the modalists, God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Greek [font=Times New Roman]π�όσωπα [/font]prosopa; Latin personae). Whereas Trinitarians believe that "God the Son", the eternal second person of the Trinity, became man, Oneness adherents [modalists] hold that the one and only true God—who manifests himself in any way he chooses, including as Father, Son and Holy Spirit—became man.

Modalists differentiate themselves from Unitarians by affirming Christ's Deity. Sabellianism has been rejected by the majority of Christian churches in favour of Trinitarianism, which was eventually defined as three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons by the Athanasian Creed late in the fourth century.

[Ionian_Tradition]

[font=Times New Roman]1[/font] represents a single entity.

[font=Times New Roman]3[/font] represents more than one entity. Three is the first odd prime number, and the second smallest prime.

Can you explain how a person, Jesus, can be both part of something and entirely something? I cannot.

This is not orthodox trinitarian theology as formulated by most of the Church fathers.

God is one entity, which eternally exists as three persons. A person does not equal an entity, but is a particular way that an entity can exists. So, an entity can exist as a person, as an object, as an idea, as a possibility. God is one entity who exists as three distinct persons, three distinct simultaneous modes. This objection fails to understand the basic patristic conception of a person.

Both you and I are engaged in a discussion which concerns this very topic so I will reserve the bulk of my response for that thread. With that said, there are a number of interesting implications which are derived from this particular depiction of God. I shall attempt to name but a few which seem problematic from a theological perspective.

1. This line of Patristic thought seems to have reduced "God" to a collection of sentient minds. If such is the case, we cannot then assert that God is a "non-contingent" being, nor can we assert that God exists as an indivisible being. In regard to the former, according to your argument,the trinitarian God is made God by virtue of the persons which comprise it , in the absence of any one of these persons, "God" would cease to exists, thus the entity "God" is contingent upon the assemblage of its constituent properties (3 separate and distinct minds). God cannot therefore be named a "non-contingent" being. Regarding the later, if the existence of God is contingent upon the existence of its constituent properties, the entity "God" is reducible to its parts. Thus God cannot exist as a being indivisible (lacking constituent parts).

2. This depiction of "God" seems to render the notion of Jesus, the Father, and the spirit as each "God" patently false given that "God" is, according to patristic reasoning, an assemblage of its 3 persons. Independently, its persons lack the quality of God, in the same way that the atoms which comprise oxygen independently lack the quality of a molecule. Just as a proton is not Oxygen, Jesus, according to this line or reasoning, is apparently not "God".

3. If God is a mere collection of 3 persons, then scriptural passages which refer to God as a singular person ("he", "him", "I") become contradictory ( I trust I need not list them). More accurate would be to refer to God as the great "we are" instead of the great "I am".

Scriptural passages such as Romans 11:34 ("Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" ) also seem problematic given that God is not a "him" (singular person) nor is God a sentient being which possesses a mind. God is no more sentient than a military tribunal. The only minds to be known are those which comprise the trinity (father, son, spirit), but as stated previously, not one of these minds exists as "God" independently, thus to assert that "God" possesses a mind, is to assert something quite false. God is a collection of beings (who are not independently God) which themselves possess separate and distinct minds.

Personally I believe that that trinitarian monotheism is "monotheistic" in title alone. 3 sentient beings possessing both divine omniscience and omnipotence are clearly Gods by any traditional definition of the term. Thus to make 3 divines into "one God" by redefining the term "God" into the amalgamate of 3 supernatural minds is to move the goal post indeed.

[AquinasD]

I respect that I ain't the brightest of bulbs, and there you are one of 'em, but I do (did?) feel my comments were legit and / or on topic.

I'm not saying they weren't. I only meant that you're going to have to do more than wave them off as assumptions. Sure, they might be assumptions for our purposes here, but they don't have to remain so; present a reason why they're wrong, and we'd have something to go off of in addressing your concerns.

It is just rather tiresome to repeatedly get the "Oh, that's just an assumption" schtick over and over and then what the assumption concerns is written off with no further reason. It may or may not be, either way let's talk about it and have reasons for why it is happened to be a good assumption or a bad assumption.

[AquinasD]

For one, God is the foundation of everything. He is the reason that there can be anything at all, and what there can be and how it can be is dependent on His reality. He is the principle of being, the source of order and reality. This includes the possibility of something's being enumerated.

Is "enumerated" just a fancy word for "counted" or is there some distinction?

I defined enumeration in this way;

For something to be enumerable, it follows that it can be brought to a parity with meaning. That is, there is some proposition that captures its whole reality and sets forth a set of logical entailments that constitutes its own paradigm.

If something is enumerable, it follows that we can perceive the relation of one property to another, to see how they come together in the whole. If something is not enumerable, that which follows and doesn't follow cannot be perfectly described by our language.

An example (besides God) of something which is not enumerable is red. You can get someone to understand everything but exactly what it is like to see red by describing it; "red" can never impress upon another just what it is like. On the other hand, I can enumerate a concept like speech. A medium of communication.

[AquinasD]

So you disagree with the fellow who claimed, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God; the LORD is one. "

Not at all. I don't see why you'd think that.

Yes, they can.

[font=Times New Roman]1[/font] represents a single entity.

[font=Times New Roman]3[/font] represents more than one entity. Three is the first odd prime number, and the second smallest prime.

Can you explain how a person, Jesus, can be both part of something and entirely something? I cannot.

Neither can I, but that was my point about language. God is not enumerable; our language fails to communicate His essence. We can touch upon the concept of God much like a line lies tangent to a circle, and you gather a bunch of these lines together to have an outline.

To show that the Trinity is a contradiction, you will have to either;

1) Refute my claim about enumerability concerning God.

2) Show how Unity or Trinity contradict a way we know of God.

[dianaiad]

Question for debate: Is the Doctrine of Trinity a Logical Contradiction?

At the risk of being nailed for posting a one liner....

well........
yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

[Ionian_Tradition]

So you disagree with the fellow who claimed, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God; the LORD is one. "

Not at all. I don't see why you'd think that.

Yes, they can.

[font=Times New Roman]1[/font] represents a single entity.

[font=Times New Roman]3[/font] represents more than one entity. Three is the first odd prime number, and the second smallest prime.

Can you explain how a person, Jesus, can be both part of something and entirely something? I cannot.

Neither can I, but that was my point about language. God is not enumerable; our language fails to communicate His essence. We can touch upon the concept of God much like a line lies tangent to a circle, and you gather a bunch of these lines together to have an outline.

To show that the Trinity is a contradiction, you will have to either;

1) Refute my claim about enumerability concerning God.

2) Show how Unity or Trinity contradict a way we know of God.

Here's one straight from the Summa Theologica and your patron saint if I'm not mistaken. Thomists assert that the "first way" establishes the existence of a being of pure actuality, or unmoved mover (God), which provides the ground and source of all that is. It is argued that this being of pure act, possesses no potentiality and must therefore exist as one singular entity.. for if there existed multiple beings of pure act, then their existence would denote differences in state and identity which would further denote the existence of potentialities not actualized in reference to their respective counter parts. Thus a being of pure act (lacking potentiality) could not exist along side other beings of pure act which embody unrealized potentialities. The doctrine of the trinity posits the existence of 3 separate and distinct instantiations of God (the unmoved mover/being of pure act). However, these beings cannot exist coextensive with one another if indeed they are to be named the being of pure actuality. Either one is the ground and source of the others, in which case all members of the trinity are not God (the being of pure act), or there are no "others". In both instances the doctrine of the Trinity (3 beings = 1 being of pure act) is shown to be both logically and theologically untenable as per Aquinas' "first way". I believe this perhaps qualifies as an example of how the doctrine of the trinity might contradict a way Thomists, such as yourself, "know God".

[Bust Nak]

God is one entity, which eternally exists as three persons. A person does not equal an entity, but is a particular way that an entity can exists. So, an entity can exist as a person, as an object, as an idea, as a possibility. God is one entity who exists as three distinct persons, three distinct simultaneous modes. This objection fails to understand the basic patristic conception of a person.

That sounds like modalism rather than trinity.

yeah. it is.

(grin)

But that's ONE of the reasons Catholics and mainstream Christians don't think I am.

Christian, that is.

Three parts to a whole makes way more sense than three wholes to one whole. Perharps you can tell me why mainsteam Christians thinks it's important to treat Jesus as the entirely of God rather than a part of God? Is it because Jesus is referred to as God in some part of the Bible?

And what passages do you use to support your non trinitarian views - Surely it's not simply because 1+1+1 = 1 doesn't make sense?