Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

If there was a logical chain that was demonstrated to be a contradiction would you still follow your beliefs or would you simply accept that God could do all things?

For instance suppose you had to accept that square circles existed. Would you claim that God could make square circles or would you abandon your beliefs?

I for one would not follow my beliefs once I knew they were irrational. Would you?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #21

Post by marco »

Wootah wrote:

Monotheism is one God. Polytheism is many. Keep that in mind and you'll be able to use it again. In life but more likely on this forum.
The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. (Definition of Trinity)
This makes three Gods. Ergo, polytheism to the rational mind.

If we accept this as a mystery, irrational but revealed by God- we can get along with accepting three is one.

If we try to rationalise the situation, comparing each person in the Trinity with a member of a team, we deny what the Trinity says: that each person is FULLY God.
The Trinity is an irrational idea, as far as humans are concerned, but is accepted as being a mystery as inexplicable as a fetid corpse being raised to life.

If, somehow, one sees the idea as completely rational, one has failed to understand the doctrine. It is not a rational notion.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #22

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to marco]

You're making statements but not offering evidence. You have apriori concluded it is irrational. I am aposteriori showing ways it can make sense.

I've demonstrated that it is rational. In fact, as far as I can tell in all areas of human grouping the idea is to act as one. Is it not, therefore, more likely that God would perfect that?

Mysteries are not per se irrational either. If you know a little David Hume you know that just because every fetid corpse stays a fetid corpse is no more likely than any other of an infinite number of other possibilities.
If, somehow, one sees the idea as completely rational, one has failed to understand the doctrine. It is not a rational notion.
It just feels like you are being dogmatic here, as I said apriori you have decided what is best for you to decide perhaps?

I honestly fail to see how you can't acknowledge that the Trinity may be possible and can't go forth using the previous metaphors if you wanted to.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #23

Post by ttruscott »

marco wrote:
Wootah wrote:
I for one would not follow my beliefs once I knew they were irrational. Would you?
And yet....and yet ..... The Son is God, the Father if God, the Holy Spirit is God and this makes three Gods? No - it makes ONE God. We add 1 and 1 and 1 and we get 1, which is irrational. Yet we believe in the Trinity.
How does adding up the number of divine persons deny that the divine attributes of three divine people creates a perfect UNITY,`ECHAD that we call ONE GOD? Is this suggested process of addition not irrational and therefore unworthy as serious debate?
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #24

Post by marco »

Wootah wrote: [Replying to marco]

You're making statements but not offering evidence. You have apriori concluded it is irrational. I am aposteriori showing ways it can make sense.
I am making statements based on the exposition of the Trinity by the Church Fathers. There's nothing to give evidence for; it is an article of faith that the Trinity is a mystery. Mysteries may well have rational explanations when they cease to be mysteries but this one stays mysterious and irrational. It involves the notion of the Son being "consubstantial" with the Father, a tricky concept in itself.
Wootah wrote:
I've demonstrated that it is rational.
You have given an analogy which does not correspond to the definition of the Trinity. Your analogy involves PARTS contributing towards some sort of unity, a rational notion. This is not what the Trinity is; each person IS God.
Wootah wrote: In fact, as far as I can tell in all areas of human grouping the idea is to act as one. Is it not, therefore, more likely that God would perfect that?
I don't doubt that this sociological bonding takes place where humans go and gods may well combine in the same way, but this has no relation to the Trinity.
Wootah wrote:
Mysteries are not per se irrational either. If you know a little David Hume you know that just because every fetid corpse stays a fetid corpse is no more likely than any other of an infinite number of other possibilities.
My study of Hume involved feelings being the basis of morality, rather than reason, which was Kant's notion. I'm not sure how Hume helps me to understand the Trinity.
Wootah wrote:
It just feels like you are being dogmatic here, as I said apriori you have decided what is best for you to decide perhaps?
I AM being dogmatic since the Trinity is Church dogma. My a priori notions of the Trinity are taken from its definition and that of a mystery: a truth which is above reason but revealed by God. If it is above reason, a posteriori investigations won't bring it rationally closer.




I honestly fail to see how you can't acknowledge that the Trinity may be possible and can't go forth using the previous metaphors if you wanted to.[/quote]

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #25

Post by marco »

ttruscott wrote:

How does adding up the number of divine persons deny that the divine attributes of three divine people creates a perfect UNITY,`
This is a rationalisation of the Trinity doctrine.

If it were simply the case that the three persons contribute to a perfect unity, there is nothing "trinity" about this other than three parts give a whole. That is NOT what is declared: each part is God, whole and entire. It is not the case that God is the heart and head, Jesus the knees etc. All that Jesus is by way of God, so is the Spirit. This SEEMS to suggest 3 Gods, but by dogmatic declaration (or revealed truth) there remains ONE God.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #26

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 24 by marco]

OK well we will have to 'agree to disagree'. The Trinity somehow remains irrational to you. Maybe next time we talk on it we can see if there is a shift on either side.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #27

Post by marco »

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 24 by marco]

OK well we will have to 'agree to disagree'. The Trinity somehow remains irrational to you. Maybe next time we talk on it we can see if there is a shift on either side.

It is good and wise to agree to disagree, Wootah. I am going by what I understand to be the defined position of the Church on the Trinity; it is never mentioned, otherwise, in the Bible so I don't know what else there is to go on. I do appreciate your point of view and in fact if all things Christian were resolvable into such clear terms, it would solve a lot of problems and remove many objections.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #28

Post by McCulloch »

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 24 by marco]
The Trinity somehow remains irrational to you. Maybe next time we talk on it we can see if there is a shift on either side.
Rationality is not subjective. One side argues that Trinity doctrine is rational. But when pressed to explain the apparent irrationality of this dogma, their answers always fall short or explain something that is not what Trinity teaches.

The side arguing for rationality would benefit from being able to provide an example or an analogy of something that is both three (or two, or six) and one but not multiple aspects of what is essentially one or multiple components which together make up some kind of unity. Just one example. Please. Is that too much to ask?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #29

Post by ttruscott »

marco wrote:
ttruscott wrote:

How does adding up the number of divine persons deny that the divine attributes of three divine people creates a perfect UNITY,`
This is a rationalisation of the Trinity doctrine.

If it were simply the case that the three persons contribute to a perfect unity, there is nothing "trinity" about this other than three parts give a whole. That is NOT what is declared: each part is God, whole and entire. It is not the case that God is the heart and head, Jesus the knees etc. All that Jesus is by way of God, so is the Spirit. This SEEMS to suggest 3 Gods, but by dogmatic declaration (or revealed truth) there remains ONE God.

than three parts give a whole - ? If there was only one Divine Person, it would be one GOD, if there were two Divine Persons, there would be one GOD and if there are three Divine Persons, there is one GOD. This is waaay more than 3 parts to form one GOD. With three parts to form one GOD if any one part is missing then GOD is incomplete, imperfect.

With one divine person who is divine because He has the divine attributes, this person is perfectly and completely GOD. When more divine persons are together they have a perfect UNITY as ONE GOD. Using earthly words like before, after and without to make a point but not definitively: No one is more GOD after Unity than He was before the Unity nor is one less GOD without the Unity because their GODliness does not depend upon this UNITY but upon their attributes being the divine attributes, AND the effect of the GODly attributes is a perfect unity, not individuality, without destroying individuality.

Your assertion about the Christian GODly Unity is not accepted...
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Would you tolerate your beliefs if they were irrational?

Post #30

Post by ttruscott »

McCulloch wrote:The side arguing for rationality would benefit from being able to provide an example or an analogy of something that is both three (or two, or six) and one but not multiple aspects of what is essentially one or multiple components which together make up some kind of unity. Just one example. Please. Is that too much to ask?

Should we believe that the unity of divine attributes is non-existent because it is unique?? Divinity is unique and that supports a unique unity, no?
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Post Reply