So I disagree with the New Advent quote above where it says “can be expressed…only in terms of analogy.” — Fire Ologist

One can understand what that encyclopedia means by 'analogy' by consulting its entry on analogy. It's different from how we now use that term colloquially.

It is precisely the fact that reason is a separate function than belief that one can believe before seeing reason — Fire Ologist

I think a good starting point for this is the quote I gave from Peter L. P. Simpson.

So I agree with you and Banno that the Trinity strains credulity. — Fire Ologist

I think the whole notion that "the Trinity strains credulity" is premised upon the contentious idea that the Trinity is discovered through natural reason. Something which does not pretend to be demonstrated by natural reason cannot really strain the credulity of natural reason.

For example, suppose a highly intelligent man told you, "I have developed technology capable of catching the rocket boosters from a rocket launch." Does that "strain credulity"? It depends on how intelligent you believe him to be. Whether the claim is credible depends on the man. To say that what he says "strains credulity" is to either hold that he is not sufficiently intelligent, powerful, or honest, or else to hold that what he testifies to is logically impossible.

The problem here is that folks like Banno simply haven't asked the question of where the Trinitarian doctrines come from:

One question here is surely whether the Trinity is to be understood as a starting point, as a hinge proposition, not to be doubted; or as a deduction from first principles as Bob Ross would have it; or... — Banno

In fact Christians believe in the Trinity on the testimony of God. It isn't a "hinge proposition"* or any such thing. The implicit premise for Banno which says that God cannot testify is an atheistic petitio principii.

What I said towards the end of <this thread> is very much on point here. There are only two logically valid attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity: 1) The Trinity is self-contradictory; or 2) The Christian's reasons for believing in the Trinity are insufficient. Both attacks require actual work.


* Incidentally, a "hinge proposition" in the way it is usually understood is a philosophically incoherent idea, whether or not Wittgenstein even held to it.

Sure. All cards on the table, the inspiration for the OP was the fact that there were two open threads attacking the OT, one on the basis that some of the folktales in it don't seem possible, and one complaining that the OT deity seems vengeful. I was like, did you guys think the NT makes sense? Because it doesn't. — frank

Do you find it odd that you didn't bother to reference the New Testament? One cannot make arguments against the New Testament without consulting the New Testament, just as one cannot make arguments against Catholicism without consulting Catholicism. So the consultation of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly a step in the right direction, even if it is only occurring on page 19.

If you will, read the following from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, and see if you can understand how a person would get the impression that the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be beyond human understanding.

...

In other words, they're drawing a distinction between incomprehensibility and inconceivableness. At first glance, it doesn't seem that such a distinction is supportable. Don't these two words mean the same thing? When the topic is mystery, the answer is no. A mystery is incomprehensible, but not inconceivable. They're denying that the Trinity is a contradiction, but they admit that it's superior to reason. Another way to say that is that it is beyond reason. — frank

I think Count already addressed this:

Something does not need to be contradictory to be a mystery. Indeed, I'd argue that if something is contradictory, in a strict logical sense, it is simply absurd, not a mystery at all. To say, in a univocal, properly logical sense, that God is both numerically one and not-numerically one, and that the Father is the Son and also is not-the Son, isn't a statement of mystery, it is nonsense. It is nonsense because we are saying something, and then negating it, and not in the fashion of apophatic theology, where we affirm in one sense, and then negate the creaturely sense, but in the strict univocal manner appropriate to logic, so that we are actually not saying anything at all, because everything we have said has been negated.

But, there is a difference between strict contradiction and merely apparent contradictions, or contradictions that arise through equivocation, or not making proper distinctions. And there is a difference between what is beyond human reason, or beyond the domain of logic and of univocal predication, and what is contrary to reason (contradictory). — Count Timothy von Icarus

What's curious here is that many Analytics would agree with this claim:

all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; — Mystery | Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

Another way to say this is to say that nothing that we know is fully comprehended, or fully comprehensible.

So if you think that "incomprehensible" and "inconceivable" have the same meaning—itself a dubious linguistic claim—then what would follow from this quote is that nothing is conceivable. This too looks absurd.

This argumentation is fallacious, since it confounds incomprehensibility with inconceivableness, superiority to reason with contradiction. — Mystery | Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

Are you claiming that there is nothing which is superior to reason that is not at the same time contradictory? That everything which is superior to reason is contradictory?

Analysis becomes a form of worship. — Hanover

I disagree with that, but I don't know how far afield this would take us. Analysis can be worship, but it need not be. I suppose much of it depends on what you mean by "asserting the Talmud a hinge belief."

the analytic tradition need not be atheistic — Hanover

Agreed.

I just point out that both sides to our hearty debate are being myopic if they think analytic thought entails atheism. What entails atheism or theism is worldview, which relates to form of life. — Hanover

So when I said "Atheistic Analytic":

Between the Atheistic Analytic and the Catholic... — Leontiskos

...I meant an Analytic philosopher who is an atheist, thus implying that not all Analytic philosophers are atheists. Perhaps that was confusing.

I don't think it's a stipulation in that context. We know what Lois believes because we know the story. It's from the narrator's point of view. That isn't available in real life. — frank

I don't see why it can't be recast as a question of what follows from belief. For example, you could avoid this by rewriting b. "Suppose Lois believes that Superman can fly." It seems that the "God's eye view" comes not primarily in premise (b) but rather in premise (a), yet that too can be recast as a supposition, thus achieving the central Analytic shift from inference to consequence.

It has been fruitful. I've picked up quite a bit about the ancient Greeks from Christians on TPF. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Yes. Even recently you've shown me a lot of moves I suspected Jewish theology would make but had never concretely witnessed before.

It almost became a discussion between two sides of an issue a couple times, but earnestness is hard to fake on TFP. — Fire Ologist

Right. I think there are cases where religious discussion can be quite fruitful:

• Interreligious dialogue between contrasting religious approaches
• Responding to critiques from those who are knowledgeable about religion or who are willing to put in the effort to learn (including atheists)
• The application of a religious tenet or concept to another field
• Genuine inquiry

Obviously this doesn't happen too often on TPF, but it is possible.

And this leads to a new question: why the gold is not growing as fast as bitcoins? — Linkey

Because it was already a stable holding long before cryptocurrencies arrived. Therefore the gross investment in gold is presumably much higher than cryptocurrencies, even though a few cryptocurrencies are increasing at a faster pace. When you have millions of cryptocurrencies, each of which starts from scratch, some of them will begin to grow at a fast pace. But the growth factor is a very limited metric.

Beyond that, interest in cryptocurrency is currently a form of speculation, which is why one sees more growth and general variance in that area.

Coming back to this but trying to shorten the length a bit...

In general I see no reason to claim that causality is physical. — Leontiskos

I can't see that it could obtain if not. This is a really weird statement, for me. It's almost like saying "I can't see a reason, in general, to assume that heat causes hotness". I mean, causation happens in the physical world. We don't have other examples (ignoring some "hard problem" considerations that would beg the question on either side). — AmadeusD

I think this is the central point. If there are no good arguments that causality is physical, then we have no reason to claim that causality is physical. Of course if we ignore the ubiquitous phenomenon of mental causation, then we are closer to a physicalism that would favor physical causality. But at the moment I think we're asking whether causality that does not involve mentality is physical.

The way that causality abstracts from objects—physical or otherwise—and is situated in between objects (in their relationality) is another example of the way that two differentiated genera provide us with the power to reason. — Leontiskos

It doesn't obtain "between" the objects, in physical space. It only obtains "between" the objects in thought (like the "relationship" between two corporate entities. In reality, it is the "relationship of them - how the two relate). — AmadeusD

Yes, but even then the relationship between two objects is something that is between the two objects. It is neither one object nor the other nor some third object. Thus to say that causality occurs between physical objects does not seem to prove that causality is physical, unless by "is physical" we only mean, "occurring between two physical objects."

There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to consider a non-physical basis for energy transfer yet. — AmadeusD

Well "basis" is a strange word here. If there is no reason to claim that causality is physical, and there is no reason to consider a non-physical basis for energy transfer, then why not simply abstain from affirming either of those things?

In light of the above, i think I need an elucidation here. It seems this has been answered adequately above: Yes, they are one-and-the-same but in concert, not considered individually. The energy of one ball is part and parcel of itself, and not something "other". The same true for ball 2. They then interact, physically, and pass physical matter between themselves causing "work" to have obtained. — AmadeusD

Note though that if you think energy transfer is the transfer of physical matter, then it seems that you do think energy is a physical object, even though you said, "Energy is not a physical object, and no one claims it is." This is a large part of the difficulty. The concept of "capacity to do work" (energy) is not physical matter, and yet you think the transfer of energy is the transfer of physical matter.

and therefore a mathematical distance-measurement is not physical — Leontiskos

This is wrong as I see. The division is not physical. The division is artificial and, as you say, abstract. The measurement is entirely physical and rests on the actual physical limitations of point A in relation to point B and the physical space between them, along with our measurement methods which are also physical. — AmadeusD

I have a hard time with your claim that measurement is physical. I would say that a measurement of distance and the two endpoints belong to a different genus. The spatial orientation of a physical object, especially relative to something else, is not a property of itself. It is a Cambridge property. This is why points can be dimensionless even while line-lengths are not. In Euclidean geometry a line is always qualitative more than a set of points.

IN fairness, this was rough-and-ready and I'm technically misspeaking, even on my own understanding. Different forms of transfer require different descriptions, but something like this seems to work for your example. A version below:

"At the interface where the two objects meet, the faster-moving, higher-energy particles from the hot object collide with the slower-moving, lower-energy particles of the colder object."

At collision, "energy" which is read essentially as head or speed in this context, passes between the two objects, more-or-less replacing the hotter, faster particles in the moving object with colder, slower particles from the stationary object (again, not quite right - but the net effect is this).

An easier example is something like boiling (convection more broadly): less energetic particles are heated, move faster and spread about over a larger area, which causes them to move (as they cannot be as close to other particles when vibrating so fast, lest destruction occur) upwards and transfer that heat as essentially movement, to the more dense, less hot particles which they encounter. There's a purely physical explanation going on there.

Energy is just an assignment of value to the ability for a system to "do work" or affect other systems and objects. It's not claimed to be a "thing". Its a physical attribute, described very different across different media. — AmadeusD

I agree that the case of boiling water fits your account better than the case of collision. The difficulty here is that if you think every cause is physical, then you will need to defend not only the boiling of water, but also the collision of objects, gravity, etc.

it is hard to see how gravity is itself supposed to be physical. — Leontiskos

I don't find it hard. But then, I include certain assumptions about "fabric" being involved in space-time. That there is a finite set of work that can be done within the Universe leads me to understand that all bodies will be affected by all other bodies. This will represent itself in a ubiquitous force exerted by everything, on everything else. I'm unsure its reducible in any way from that. — AmadeusD

But I think "fabric" is another metaphor being reified. Does the physicist see the "spacetime fabric" as physical? In what sense is it said to be physical? We can surely stretch the word "physical" far beyond what we ever generally mean by it, but I am not much interested in that approach.

I'll go with your example though [but add premise 3]: — AmadeusD

1. Billiard ball1 causes billiard ball2 to move
2. Billiard ball1 and billiard ball2 are both physical
3. There is nothing else involved in the interaction
4. Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two billiard balls is itself physical — Leontiskos

I still don't see that (4) follows. There is no sufficient reason to believe that the (causal) interaction is itself physical.

Consider: <Muhammad Ali causes George Foreman to move; Muhammad Ali and George Foreman are both human; There is nothing else involved in the interaction; Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two boxers is itself human>.

Or: <The cue-ball causes the the nine-ball to move; The cue-ball and the nine-ball are both phenolic resin; There is nothing else involved in the interaction; Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two balls is itself phenolic resin>.

This form of reasoning does not seem to be valid. A kind of metabasis eis allo genos is occurring in the conclusion, where the predicate term is of an improper genus. Causation is not human, or phenolic resin, or physical, etc. We can say that what causes the nine-ball to move is the collision with a phenolic resin object, but words like "collision," "interaction," "relation," are also not amenable to the genera in question. Collisions are not phenolic resin, or phenolic resin objects. Collisions can occur between objects made of phenolic resin; or objects made of phenolic resin can collide, but it is still improper to say that the collision is itself phenolic resin.

I would say that the majority of talk about causation is in non-physicalist terms. — Leontiskos

I agree. I think most of it is doomed to be self-contradictory, empirically untenable or down-right ridiculous (God did it, for instance). — AmadeusD

That's not what I am saying. If two physicists are studying billiards and you ask them, "Are you assuming that the collision is itself phenolic resin?," they will tell you, "No, I am not." Or, "Are you assuming that the collision is itself physical?," they will tell you, "No, I am not." Physics by its very nature has always prescinded from the idea that collisions are themselves phenolic resin or that collisions are themselves physical. I gave the reason why earlier, "explanation and reasoning requires differentiated genera." If everything is reduced to the physical (or to any one homogenous thing), then explanation will be impossible, including causality-explanations.

But I think what you say is right when taken with respect to our cultural "religion" of materialism or physicalism. If we just assume that everything is physical, including causality, then we lead ourselves into absurdities. In this case it is the absurdity which makes interactions the same kind of thing as that which interacts. ("The Physical" is the new Ur-explanation)

Exactly: "that a car could make." It is potential. "Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work" (Britannica). — Leontiskos

Physically deducible. — AmadeusD

"Physically deducible" is a strange and ambiguous phrase. Better to say, "deducible from physical interactions." And there simply is no valid deduction to the conclusion that the interaction is itself physical.

The point here is that none of us care to argue the esoteric points of Catholicism to determine whether the trinity is sustainable within the dictates of that logical system and to otherwise point out the tensions from within that system. — Hanover

This is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If the two interlocutors do not share an overarching norm then one's critique of the other will not be intelligible. The only real norm that Analytic Philosophy is consciously capable of is the norm of consistency (which is apparently the avoidance of being "illogical").

That's fine as far as it goes. Catholics also hold to the norm of consistency. But to show that the doctrine of the Trinity contains within itself a contradiction is a tall task, and I don't find a serious attempt at it within this thread. @frank's most recent attempt was to skip the "discovery" phrase and just declare that Catholics themselves hold that the Trinity is illogical. The problem with such an approach is basic: Catholics, like everyone else, simply do not hold that their own beliefs are illogical. Frank's claim about what Catholics hold is just false, and obviously so. Note too that in the extremely dense and complex history of Trinitarian controversy, the charge of internal self-contradiction is incredibly rare. The Analytic's desire to avoid metaphysics makes his whole approach extremely impotent in the face of real life philosophies, such as religions.

It is a tug of war between the substantiality of the norm and the communicability of the norm. Between the Atheistic Analytic and the Catholic the communicable/shared norms tend to be insubstantial, and the substantial norms tend to be incommunicable/unshared. This is why the whole approach of the OP is misguided. The Analytic, with his tiny set of norms, must ultimately admit that pretty much everything passes muster, at least on Analytic grounds. This is not so with a Muslim, for example, who has a metaphysical conception of God that is at odds with the Trinity.

Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. — Fire Ologist

Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is. — Banno

We have yet another equivocation from Banno. What he did was give a strange self-referential account of why it looks like his activity in the thread is stupid but it's really quite smart. He is narrating his own activity and trying to construe it as "performance art" and "Wittgenstenian showing." According to his self-narration, he was trying to sink the thread into a bog of pointlessness! This post of Banno's was a very poor and awkward attempt at what the Germans refer to as "Deutungshoheit."

So whether or not philosophy is talking about talking, this self-narration in order to try to salvage one's past utterances is obviously not philosophy. It's just a vain attempt to save face.

“if x and y are the same object, then x and y have the same properties" — frank

In each case you are dealing with mental or intentional objects, and therein lies the confusion. Things like belief or the number of letters that any given language uses for a word have to do with our thinking, not with objects in themselves. In an Aristotelian sense an accidental property is being confused with an essential property. For example, it is only an accidental property of Istanbul that its English name has eight letters. Leibniz' law was never meant to track accidental properties deriving from mental objects.

Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?

That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.

Leon is helpful in these threads becasue he is so predictable. When someone disagrees with him he will variously denigrate them personally, misrepresent what they have said and claim to have already provided the answer. It's a pattern seen across many threads and against many different posters, and is the reason that he is ignored by so many of the more competent folk hereabouts.

He also borrows a strategy from Tim, to bury the discussion in appeals to specialised theological metaphysics, to insist that those who do not engage in the same texts as he does cannot understand his profundity. At heart this is an appeal to authority, together with a refusal to engage charitably.

Tim of course has a better background in all this than any of us, and so never descends to plebeian stance of actually presenting an argument. Hand waving and eloquence is sufficient for him to maintain his circumstance.

Fire Ologist presumes that the posts here are trying to learn about Christianity. That's not something I'm much interested in, given it's ubiquity. Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.

So is this just performance art? Public onanism?

What if Banno's point is more Wittgensteinian, or Davidsonian - that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? Then the arch of his assault here is in showing that all Leon and Tim and the others are doing is also a distasteful display of inappropriate behaviour? That in the face of the ineffable and the infinite, any finite discourse must fail?

But he's not cleaver enough to be doing that, now, is he.

Perhaps it's not a good idea to post these musings. But I'll do it anyway. These interminable threads make my point far more eloquently than I ever could. — Banno

No, this sort of ad hominem psychologizing and self-portrayal that you often resort to reveals how desperate you are to try to spin a narrative that has gotten away from you, in yet another thread where you have embarrassed yourself. In this case the embarrassment stems from your refusal to move beyond a diagram.

(I quoted your whole post so there's no need to try to edit it away. It's a gem.)

Again, you are confusing identi[t]y relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G". — Bob Ross

:100: :up:

These uses of "=" have caused confusion, not clarity.

- :up:

I agree with that. I will say Banno was trying to be precise, pointing out specific contradictions. — Fire Ologist

The other thing we have to reckon with is the question of how much any given explanation or account is meant to bear. The diagram that Banno has decided to scrutinize is not meant to bear scrutiny from the hardened anti-religious. It is at best a heuristic tool to help believers remember some basic ideas relating to the Trinity, or to sketch the silhouette of the doctrine. It just doesn't make sense to take refined philosophical weapons and go to war against a simple heuristic diagram.

I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism.

Like explaining why a song is beautiful - some things said will only make sense to someone who heard the song. — Fire Ologist

I think what has happened at points throughout the thread is an accumulation of several minor equivocations. For example, someone who cannot even read music might look at a musical score and move from predication to predication:

• Not beautiful
• Not satisfying
• Not logical

What has happened in this thread is that the shift continues:

• ...Ugly
• ...Dissatisfying
• ...Illogical

One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason," but this does not suffice to infer, "illogical." The root problem is that a claim like "not logical" is vague and ambiguous, as it has a very large semantic range and could even be construed in positive or negative ways. It lacks precision and is therefore an unwieldy predication, especially when it is to be leveraged as an accusation.

---

To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain: — Count Timothy von Icarus

He is very eloquent. :up:

:lol:

This is quite the thread.

:up:

And that is why these threads are tedious. "Catholics hold that the Trinity is illogical and I am not willing to offer any evidence for this implausible claim of mine." Or else seizing upon the most simplistic diagram and interpreting it in the most uncharitable sense possible in order to try to score a point against Christianity.

- I'll take that as a "no."

Your quote does not state that the Trinity is illogical. Care to try again? Care to try to present evidence for your thesis that the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be illogical?

I disagree. — frank

And you consistently refuse to present any evidence whatsoever for your claim that the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be illogical. This sort of thing is why you haven't been taken seriously in this thread.

Does anybody want to take a shot at this question? If it's illogical, does that mean it's impossible? Or would limiting the world to my own concepts be a kind of idealism? — frank

You are falsely representing the Catholic Church by claiming that the Catholic Church holds that the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical. You have been misrepresenting the Catholic Church over and over throughout this thread, beginning with the very first post.

Because you conflate these, you think doctrinal statements to the effect of "the Trinity is a mystery," somehow support, "the Trinity is contradictory." These aren't taken to be the same thing. Nor is it the same thing to say: "logic does not show that the Trinity involves a contradiction," as to say: "the mystery of the Trinity can be explicated through logic." "The Trinity is not a contradiction," is an apophatic statement. And indeed, this is actually the far more typical fideist and nominalist response, to stick to the strictly apophatic, and claim that the mystery cannot be explicated, only accepted by faith. That is, however, something distinct from affirming that it is a contradiction, and then affirming the contradiction.

I can give you a more common example. Suppose we can agree to "love and beauty cannot be explained by logic." It does not follow then that "love and beauty involve contradictions," or that "to say one is in love, one must affirm a contradiction." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. :up:

I know you got into some of this earlier, but there are different schools on these sorts of questions even within Catholicism. Nevertheless, all of the Catholic schools agree that any faith-based doctrine can be successfully defended from charges of contradiction or incoherence. There is a common opinion found especially among Thomists that something like the Trinity cannot be demonstrated from natural reason, but it does not follow from this that the Trinity is somehow illogical or incoherent.

@Banno has a better sense of what @frank does not understand:

As I said, Thomists will be able to mount a defence for each of these objections. — Banno

That's what I thought. This is why you think drawing attention to the logic of the Trinity is an attack on Christianity: because you think if God is a trinity, and trinity is illogical, then God is impossible. — frank

No, I think the people who never miss a beat when it comes to an anti-religious topic are deeply invested in attacking religion. The statistics tell that tale.

For the most part, Banno couldn't care less. — frank

The statistics don't support your thesis.

So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. — frank

Consider trying to quote a Catholic source instead of engaging in lazy misrepresentation. Here is Thomas:

as regards others it suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not impossible — Aquinas, ST I.32.1

But it should come as no surprise to you that Catholics do not believe the impossible to be possible. That such a thing is a strawman should be evident.

Do you believe that anything that defies logic is impossible? — frank

I believe that what is logically impossible is impossible.

But do you see how implausible it is for deflationists of the kind found on TPF to try to establish an immutable truth and then apply it to God? Folks around here routinely dismiss the law of non-contradiction, and therefore I don't see how they are going to manage to disprove the religious doctrine du jour with some firm and unchanging truth. As I said:

Banno clings to "pluralism" whenever someone critiques him, and then he is all of the sudden a proponent of "monism" as soon as he is doing his anti-religious schtick. — Leontiskos

Called. — Banno

Called? You say that we cannot discuss the Creed without bringing in Thomism. This is obviously false, but ignoring that for a moment, you haven't the slightest interest in discussing Thomism. I provided you with three central texts from Thomas, and pointed you back to them twice, and yet you refuse to touch them. You aren't interested in the Creed, or Thomism, or any specifically Christian theology. The only thing you are interested in is a simplistic diagram and your hostile translation of its meaning. You know that if you go beyond that diagram then your strawmen will fall to pieces.

The creed doesn't help make sense of you and Tim, of itself. We need the Thomism as well. — Banno

On that thesis it would be very difficult to understand how Christians got along without Thomism for 900 years. Or how non-Thomists got along even after Thomas. Like before, you are trading in factual inaccuracies.

As Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, it's heresy to suggest that God is a category that the three hypostases belong to, as dogs, cats, and mice belong to the category of mammals, rather, each hypostasis is fully God. — frank

Sure, but did you catch the other half, where viewing "God" and "hypostasis" as belonging to the same univocal genus is also erroneous? Is it really so odd to think that in the Source of all created being there is a reality that transcends the distinctions commonly found within created being? Isn't that pretty much what everyone would expect to find? That's how analogy cashes out when applied to God. It means that there is not a one-to-one mapping between what is found in creation and what is found in God. It means that there is more in God than there is in creation. None of this is incoherent.

Yeah, the Creed doesn't help much unless you also take on board the whole Thomistic metaphysics of essence and personhood and so on. — Banno

This would be a great take if not for the fact that the Nicene Creed predates Thomism by some 900 years. When religious topics are broached on TPF the level of both historical and general ignorance is breathtaking.

Isn't this the same thing that always happens with Banno? He takes his parochial, historically ignorant version of Analytic Philosophy... — Leontiskos

For those with an interest in background stuff, the diagram, which Leon says is most certainly not a representation the Trinity, can be found in the Wiki article on The Shield of the Trinity, where there is a bit of historical background. — Banno

I already told you that the Nicene Creed would be the ideal source. If you want to use the Athanasian Creed, on which the diagram is based, be my guest. Do some actual work in understanding what you wish to attack. Use a source that is not so open to misrepresentation by the hostile.

It's odd that you think a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine — frank

What's odd is that you think the crazy shit you're whipping up is a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine, but this has already been pointed out to you quite a few times.

So tell us what your account is! — Banno

"Tell me what you believe so I can shit all over it."

The correct answer to this request is, "Fuck off," or some variant thereof.

If you guys want to want to attack Christian theology, you'd better have an understanding of Christian theology beforehand. That you don't underlies the problem and the mauvaise foi of this whole thread. If you want to attack a real theological source I would likely defend it, but I am not going to defend heuristic diagrams from trolls.

When someone who is serious offers a critique of Christianity, it is engaged (for example). In such a case there is a serious and charitable understanding of the thing being critiqued. It is also possible that someone genuinely interested in Trinitarian theology would start a thread intending to learn more about it. But in neither of these two cases would the OPs name be "Banno" or "frank."

Frank, no one takes you to be an authority when it comes to Christianity, much less Trinitarian theology. Sorry to break it to you. You'll have to do better than, "It's true because I said so."

That's the Trinity, dude. — frank

frank said so. How could it not be true?

Klima's finishing point is that those who have not agreed with his argument do so becasue they do not have an adequate understanding of god; and that their understanding is inadequate is shown by their not accepting the argument. — Banno

That's a pretty idiotic misrepresentation of Klima, but anyone who has looked at the thread is already aware of this. I guess if you don't know how to do philosophy then misrepresentation is the next best strategy.

From Father = God and Son = God — Banno

Where are these premises coming from? I don't know of any Catholic theology which says, "Father = God and Son = God..." Oh, right: they are coming from the all-powerful diagram that your whole argument revolves around!

Nice. I might be interested in that reading group. I will download the chapter and give it a look. :up:

Again, I do not want to attack Catholic Dogma. — Banno

We all know better.

Look in the mirror. You will see a man who is too lazy to take the time to understand what Christians believe, and is at the same time deeply committed to attacking Christian beliefs. Think about that for a few minutes.

Folk here can plainly see your misrepresenting me as objecting to a mere diagram. I am pointing to the denial of the transitivity of identity shown in that diagram, and asking for an explanation. — Banno

If your objection has naught to do with the diagram, then give your objection without the diagram. You can't. Your objection is obviously an objection to what the diagram represents. As I have said, the diagram is not a reliable representation of the Trinity at a philosophical level, and no one thinks it is.

So given that you are hell-bent on attacking the Trinity, you will have to find a real theological source in order to first understand what the Trinity is. Go inform yourself that you may then satisfy your anti-religious passions. Come back when you have something more than a heuristic diagram.

Presumably, I can now proceed to present any number of accounts of the Trinity, and for each, you will say "that's not it, Dumbass!" — Banno

For the third time:

You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea.

* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos

So if you want to attack Catholicism then you should be objecting to something specifically Catholic, such as the Council of Nicea or the Catechism or a doctor such as Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, etc. I literally pointed you to the Thomistic texts.

Your objection to a diagram is ridiculous. No one thinks heuristic diagrams such as that one are meant to be theologically rigorous, or are meant to repel anti-religious attacks.

The whole thread may have been given too much credit. It's fairly hard to salvage a thread that begins that way. — Leontiskos

You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. — Wayfarer

Indeed. :up:

You have to know when someone is genuinely trying to understand something, and when they're not.

Ok, so set out what is Trinitarian dogma, — Banno

No, dumbass. If you are going to criticize Trinitarian doctrine, then the onus is on you to say where your concept of Trinitarian doctrine is coming from. If your only answer is, "This diagram I found online," then we will have a good laugh and be on our way. Besides, I already gave you the Thomistic texts that your anti-Thomism would supposedly be interested in.

explain to Wayfarer, who offered the diagram, why it is inadequate. — Banno

Wayfarer may have underestimated the extent to which this is a thread filled with trolls seething to invalidate Christianity. The diagram is a highly simplified heuristic, and one which will consistently backfire when set before a troll (Mt 7:6).