Setting aside all that rubbish, I'll point out to you that humans have soul (life), reason as its power, and will is element mixed into reason so it can operate. God is an idea we chase and they are not all equal. The clearest idea of God is that in which he is most simple, and it only sustains itself as an idea as Trinity.

Setting aside all that rubbish, — Gregory

What rubbish? You mean the ruthless reasoning?

I'll point out to you — Gregory

On whose authority? You're an expert on this sort of thing are you?

I'll point out to you that humans have soul (life), reason as its power, and will is element mixed into reason so it can operate. — Gregory

Gibberish. Again, save it for the hippies. (A soul is an object, but 'life' is something souls have - to treat soul and life as synonyms is a category error).

Humans have a soul. A soul is another word for an immaterial mind. Minds are simple objects. That is, they lack parts. That's why they're immaterial: any material thing one can conceive of will have parts and thus will be complex, not simple. That's why God is simple. He's simple becasue he's a mind and all minds are simple.

God is an idea we chase — Gregory

Er, no. Again, save it for the camp fire and your unwashed hippy crystal buddhist friends. But under Reason's cold hard stare, that makes no sense whatsoever. God is not an 'idea'. Ideas are mental states. God is not a mental state. Ideas are 'about' things. THe idea of a chair is 'about' a chair. The idea of a chair is not itself a chair. We can have the idea 'of' God. But God is not an idea. Anyway, none of this is bullshitty enough for you, is it? Anyway, everything you're saying is total nonsense, it really is.

What meds are you on or should be on? I try to talk ideas, it is you throwing arrogant shit everywhere. To me your theology sounds very hippie and no you're not an expert on God

This might have been an interesting philosophical discussion, if anyone except @Fooloso4 and the OP were willing to stick to the topic. Unfortunately, there is so much name calling, posturing, ad hominem attacks, metaphorical language and isolated statements of faith that it hardly seems worth engaging.

In fact, there are a number of posters on this thread who are actively trying to shut down the discussion, claiming there is no issue to be discussed at all. FWIW I think there is a discussion, but there seems to be no traction here.

Pity.

Why don't you try and engage with an argument rather than just asserting stuff?

Now, back to the trinity: is there any contradiction involved in the idea that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same mind? No. None. There is no contradiction in the idea that a cube of clay, and a sphere of clay and a pyramid of clay could all be one and the same lump of clay.

What about 'The David', a sculpture by Michelangelo, and a lump of marble in Florence? Could they all be one and the same thing? Yes.

So, there's no obvious contradiction involved.

For some bizarre reason you actually want there to be, so that you can just appeal to mystery (for under that banner, anything goes).

Back as well to your claim that there are things higher than Reason. No there aren't, and I demonstrated why. Either you think there's a reason to think there are things higher than reason - in which case you're confused as you're appealing to Reason's own authority which only serves to establish that there is nothing higher than Reason - or you think there's no reason to think there's anything higher than Reason, in which case you've got nothing to say in support of your claim but are saying it anyway. Which is it? They exhaust the possibilities. But that's an argument and you don't like those.

Re arrogance: a doctor is not being arrogant when they diagnose you with cancer, are they? You reply "but I don't think I do have cancer" and the doctor says "er, yes you do - here is the evidence", and you then reply "don't be so arrogant". That's confused. What's arrogant is not engaging with arguments - not engaging with evidence - but thinking it sufficient that you think something for it to be so.

I am saying you can't disprove Christianity from logic. — Gregory

I agree. I said earlier:

Now one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality, and it has been done, but one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational. — Fooloso4

I agree. I said earlie — Fooloso4

I was arguing actually that you can't prove the story is consistent. You are saying that because three Gospels don't mention Jesus's divinity the religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny

And are you engaging with the topic with that post? No. Hypocrite.

Also, you might have noticed that I engaged with the topic. Solving a problem is to engage with it.

Shall we go through it? A cube of clay and a sphere of clay and a pyramid of clay can all be made of the same clay. A cube isn't a sphere, and a sphere isn't a pyramid. Nevertheless, one and the same lump of clay can be a cube, then a sphere, then a pyramid. So....God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit can all be one and the same mind, even if they have incompatible properties.

That's called engaging with the topic.

That's not the only way a reconciliation could be achieved either. One and the same thing can simultaneously answer to different descriptions (though not incompatible descriptions). Once more: The David, a sculpture by Michelangelo and a giant lump of marble in Florence are all one and the same thing under different descriptions. So, God and Jesus and the Holy spirit could all be one and the same thing under different descriptions.

That's engaging with the topic too.

I have also pointed out - and this is metaphysically interesting and challenges what many theists think about God - that God will not have any properties essentially, for God is all powerful and thus does not 'have' to have any property. Thus any property the person of God has, he does not have to have.

If you don't find that interesting, then you're dead philosophically.

Why don't you try and engage with an argument rather than just asserting stuff?

Now, back to the trinity: is there any contradiction involved in the idea that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same mind? No. None. There is no contradiction in the idea that a cube of clay, and a sphere of clay and a pyramid of clay could all be one and the same lump of clay.

What about 'The David', a sculpture by Michelangelo, and a lump of marble in Florence? Could they all be one and the same thing? Yes.

So, there's no obvious contradiction involved.

For some bizarre reason you actually want there to be, so that you can just appeal to mystery (for under that banner, anything goes).

Back as well to your claim that there are things higher than Reason. No there aren't, and I demonstrated why. Either you think there's a reason to think there are things higher than reason - in which case you're confused as you're appealing to Reason's own authority which only serves to establish that there is nothing higher than Reason - or you think there's no reason to think there's anything higher than Reason, in which case you've got nothing to say in support of your claim but are saying it anyway. Which is it? They exhaust the possibilities. But that's an argument and you don't like those.

Re arrogance: a doctor is not being arrogant when they diagnose you with cancer, are they? You reply "but I don't think I do have cancer" and the doctor says "er, yes you do - here is the evidence", and you then reply "don't be so arrogant". That's confused. What's arrogant is not engaging with arguments - not engaging with evidence - but thinking it sufficient that you think something for it to be so. — Bartricks

The Trinity makes sense because of God's utter simplicity. In humans the soul is always united to the body as its form. Immediately after death you find the resurrection. There is no "hanging out in heaven", if you will, without a body. The form is simple. We always can say reason is "over here" and will "there" as identity relating to action. But this is not the case with God because he is soul but not form. How this supreme soul acts and has purpose is through the Trinity. You make God into an object instead of an idea. The Trinity is above reason because the idea is a fluid one and not one that works be mechanics (like logic does").

You don't seem to know how this community, who believes their spirit and state of mind go back to Jesus, thinks. — Gregory

That may be what they believe but it is inconsistent with the historical facts. There is no one single Christian community. Christianity began as a pluralistic religion. The Church Fathers tried to put an end to that. They were largely but not completely successful.

See my earlier post on the indwelling spirit. That was a belief that was suppressed by the Church Fathers. It threatened the hierarchy.

The Gospels make perfect sense as Christian documents. Why are you taking them historically? — Gregory

I am taking them historically because there is a long history of their establishment and disagreements between Christian sects. Some people think that questioning the Trinity means you are anti-Christian. History shows that the challenges to the doctrine were from the beginning largely from within Christianity. The history makes clear that the Trinity does not make perfect sense, if by perfect sense you mean rational, logical sense.

Most Christians just try to point towards their faith FOR YOU. — Gregory

Except:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

A formulation that is acceptable to philosophy is a rational argument.

But when you claim their story is inconsistent, you need to back that up and no one on this thread has done that. — Gregory

You have not been paying attention.

Now you have a new argument. So far they are

1) One Gospel only talked about Jesus's divinity, so he couldn't be divine

2) Many religious sects claim to be Christian so Jesus really didn't found one of them

These are just plain bad arguments

You're not providing an argument or engaging with anything I've argued.

I haven't denied that God is a simple object. God is a simple object. God is a mind and minds are simple objects. Therefore, God is a simple object. How much clearer can I be? God. Is. A. Simple. Object.

Minds, being simple, don't have locations. Why? Because they don't occupy space. Why? Because anything that occupies space is divisible and thus not simple.

So no mind occupies space. Simple things don't occupy space.

Now, a) how does being simple do anything to address the problem of the trinity, if problem there be? and b) what objection do you have to anything I have said? NOte: what I have actually said, not bizarre views that you've decided to attribute to me.

I agree, but neither of them is my argument.

Souls exist in the world. This is what phenomenology proves. God doesn't have a location because he is MORE simple than a soul. He is on another realm of divinity, above spiritual essence. You haven't provided any arguments against this

Well then start your two arguments on this and how they differ from the way I put them and we will go from there

The Trinity explains how God has an equal (two actually) to love. Otherwise a simple God would be a supreme king like Allah instead of pure activity like in the Trinity. Even Aristotle called God pure act

In fact, there are a number of posters on this thread who are actively trying to shut down the discussion, claiming there is no issue to be discussed at all. FWIW I think there is a discussion, but there seems to be no traction here. — Possibility

Some people are all too eager to make their beliefs known but defensively unwilling to have those beliefs examined or called into question.

I have already made the arguments.

I’m going to preface my participation here by saying that I’m not here to debate, but to discuss...

A cube of clay and a sphere of clay and a pyramid of clay can all be made of the same clay. A cube isn't a sphere, and a sphere isn't a pyramid. Nevertheless, one and the same lump of clay can be a cube, then a sphere, then a pyramid. So....God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit can all be one and the same mind, even if they have incompatible properties. — Bartricks

What this example demonstrates is that these concepts can all be constructed from the same mind, not that they can BE the same mind - mind being the clay, and ‘being’ occurring in time. But I think I follow what you’re trying to say. The important word here, in association with being, is ‘then’. Interestingly, a lump of clay can also BE three different cubes, all with some properties the same, and some different, and the fact that one and the same lump of clay can specifically be a ‘cube’, then a ‘sphere’, then a ‘pyramid’ doesn’t preclude the fact that it can also BE none of the above - a cylindrical prism, for instance.

That's not the only way a reconciliation could be achieved either. One and the same thing can simultaneously answer to different descriptions (though not incompatible descriptions). Once more: The David, a sculpture by Michelangelo and a giant lump of marble in Florence are all one and the same thing under different descriptions. So, God and Jesus and the Holy spirit could all be one and the same thing under different descriptions. — Bartricks

Okay, this one is about perceived potential, which gets us away from the temporal issue and allows for simultaneity. It’s about the concepts, a way of perceiving the material and sharing that perceived potential using discourse. It is not, however, about being, but rather about potentially being perceived as. Notice how your language has changed here from ‘can be’ to ‘could be’. There is an uncertainty here, and loudly dismissing as ‘stupid’ those who don’t perceive this potential is simply attempting to conceal the fact that it could also be described differently. You could empirically demonstrate that a giant lump of marble can’t BE a giant lump of clay (so long as the distinction between ‘marble’ and ‘clay’ is understood), but the relation between this giant lump of marble and the names ‘David’ or ‘Michelangelo’ are a matter of culturally constructed discourse, not of empirical evidence or reason.

Without this historical and cultural discourse to map the way, we can relate to the potential in perceiving this lump of marble by recognising shared qualities of human experience - but the relations lack structure, and so the process feels a bit like making shit up - hypothesising about their relations to random ideas. Except that you still have a particularly-shaped lump of marble, empirically evident, which you can always return to. But ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Holy spirit’ are all descriptions of perceived potential, and have no empirical foundation. Without the particular religious discourse, you’re effectively hypothesising about the relations between ideas and these shared qualities of human experience.

So, for all your ‘solid’ examples, you should acknowledge that all you have available to build on are shared qualities of human experience in relation to ideas. Religious discourse is one way to map this, but not the only way. And when it fails to find agreement, then cubes of clay and marble sculptures aren’t necessarily going to give you the foundation you need. Not like in mathematics.

I have also pointed out - and this is metaphysically interesting and challenges what many theists think about God - that God will not have any properties essentially, for God is all powerful and thus does not 'have' to have any property. Thus any property the person of God has, he does not have to have. — Bartricks

Here you may need to clarify: are you discussing ‘God’ as a being, as a concept, or as an idea?

Souls exist in the world. This is what phenomenology proves. God doesn't have a location because he is MORE simple than a soul. He is on another realm of divinity, above spiritual essence. You haven't provided any arguments against this — Gregory

Like I said, argue something.

We have minds.

Minds are simple objects.

Why?

They're indivisible. Half a mind makes no sense.

If they were divisible, they'd have parts and then they'd not be simple.

They're not divisible, therefore they're simple.

They don't occupy space. Why? Becuase they're simple. If they occupied space they'd be divisible and then they wouldn't be simple. But they are simple and thus they do not occupy space.

Your body occupies space if anything does. But all that means is that your mind is not your body.

God is a mind. So God is simple and God also does not occupy space.

Those are called 'arguments'.

The Trinity explains how God has an equal (two actually) to love. Otherwise a simple God would be a supreme king like Allah instead of pure activity like in the Trinity. Even Aristotle called God pure act — Gregory

Er, what are you on? Explain how God's being a simple entity does anything to explain the trinity.

What this example demonstrates is that these concepts can all be constructed from the same mind, not that they can BE the same mind - mind being the clay, and ‘being’ occurring in time. But I think I follow what you’re trying to say. — Possibility

No, that's not what it demonstrates (for what you've said makes no sense). What it demonstrates is that one and the same object can have radically different properties at different times. And this is as true of minds as it is of anything else. The clay, when it is cuboid, has the property of being cuboid. The clay, when it is spherical, has the property of being spherical. The clay, when it is pyramidical, has the property of being pyramidical. It's the same clay, it just had different properties.

I am the same person I was a moment ago when I was thinking something quite different to what I am thinking right now.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are properties of the mind of God. But the mind of God could lose them - could become less than omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent - and still be the same mind, the same person.

This is important becasue I take it that one problem people have is understanding how Jesus and God could be the same person, yet Jesus not know things God knows. The above explains how that's entirely possible. God knows everything, but it does not follow that if Jesus is the same person as God that Jesus knows everything (just as a cuboid has four corners, but it does not follow that if the sphere is the same clay as the cuboid that it has four corners).

Thus, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit could have mutually incompatible properties yet still be one and the same person. They could not have those properties at the same time, admittedly. But so what? Like I say, I am not a christian and so I do not know whether they need to or not or what scriptural support any of this has. I am simply showing how it can be that God could know things Jesus doesn't know and yet God and Jesus could be one and the same person.

Okay, this one is about perceived potential, which gets us away from the temporal issue and allows for simultaneity. — Possibility

Notice how your language has changed here from ‘can be’ to ‘could be’. — Possibility

What? I was offering a different way in which one and the same object might answer to three quite different descriptions at the same time. Why do you think you need to point anything out to me? Am I incorrect? Does 'The David' and 'A sculpture by Michelangelo made to adorn the front of the Duomo' and 'the biggest lump of marble in Florence' not refer to one and the same thing? They do.

I was showing how rich the resources were to deal with what others too quickly dismiss as incoherent.

So, for all your ‘solid’ examples, you should acknowledge that all you have available to build on are shared qualities of human experience in relation to ideas. — Possibility

I have literally no idea what you're on about. If you had a cogent criticism you'd make it, but this is just fog.

Here you may need to clarify: are you discussing ‘God’ as a being, as a concept, or as an idea? — Possibility

The word 'concept' and the word 'idea' are synonyms. And God is not a concept (or idea, if you prefer). That's a category error. God is a person. A mind.

The idea of Bartricks is not Bartricks. I am Bartricks. A person. A mind. I am not an idea, even though you have an idea 'of' me. Ideas - concepts - are 'of' things. The things they are of are not themselves ideas unless, that is, we are talking about the idea of an idea.

Like I said, argue something.

We have minds.

Minds are simple objects.

Why?

They're indivisible. Half a mind makes no sense.

If they were divisible, they'd have parts and then they'd not be simple.

They're not divisible, therefore they're simple.

They don't occupy space. Why? Becuase they're simple. If they occupied space they'd be divisible and then they wouldn't be simple. But they are simple and thus they do not occupy space.

Your body occupies space if anything does. But all that means is that your mind is not your body.

God is a mind. So God is simple and God also does not occupy space.

Those are called 'arguments'. — Bartricks

This is not an argument. God is perfectly simple, we are not. Why? Because we are bodies in the world. The soul and the body are the same thing. I've gotten the impression from you for a long time that you were dissociative. Now I have your "logic" which you use to justify it. If soul is your identity, than you are saying you are nowhere

Explain how God's being a simple entity does anything to explain the trinity. — Bartricks

Because we are en-souled bodies, soul forming the matter into the form human eye can see. We are in a social system on earth, where we relate to other beings. That is how consciousness works. It can't be outside the world unless you are God and God is bound by the law of love. Your idea, which you have no arguments for, is that God is bound by nothing and can annihilate himself. I'm sure he can annihilate himself, but he is bound by laws that are Himself. You don't provide arguments because, to be honest, there are no definite arguments on this, at least on paper. It's about conversing, comparing notes, and then going with what faith tells you. Your rationalism is getting into a lot of trouble here

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are properties of the mind of God. But the mind of God could lose them - could become less than omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent - and still be the same mind, the same person. — Bartricks

You believe you are nowhere but have a super-powerful (maybe today totally powerless) alien watching over you. Then mustn't you believe than that you have a body? I'm not trying to play therapist, but your position sounds very very strange especially when you factor in that you throw an insult into all you posts

You believe you are nowhere — Gregory

Yes. Minds don't have spatial locations. Material things have spatial locations. For that's the nature of a material thing - a material thing is something that is extended in space. Thus, they have spatial locations.

Minds are not material entities, and thus they do not have spatial locations. They exist, but they do not have a spatial location.

My mind - and God's mind - do have temporal locations. Anything that exists exists 'now'. And 'now' is a temporal location. So they do exist 'somewhere' temporally - they exist 'now' (but that's kind of contained in the meaning of exists). But they do not exist in a spatial location, because they're not material objects.

Then mustn't you believe than that you have a body? — Gregory

I do believe I have a body. I 'have' a body. I am not a body. I have one. I am not one. I have a shirt. I am not a shirt. I have a house. I am not a house. I have a book. I am not a book. I have a body. I am not a body. See? Having a body and being one are not the same.

I'm not trying to play therapist, but your position sounds very very strange especially when you factor in that you throw an insult into all you posts — Gregory

Then you reveal your ignorance, as my position is not remotely strange - most of the great philosophers held the same view. That is, they held that their minds were immaterial entities that lack locations and that there is a god - God. And some of them - especially Descartes - would think nothing of insulting those who deserved it.

but have a super-powerful (maybe today totally powerless) alien watching over you. — Gregory

I didn't say that, did I? God exists. But God is not powerless, but all powerful. And I don't think he's "watching over me" - where did I say he was? I don't think he gives much of a toss about me or you. Why would he?

So, I asked you to explain how being a simple entity does anything to explain the trinity.

And your response?

Because we are en-souled bodies, soul forming the matter into the form human eye can see. We are in a social system on earth, where we relate to other beings. That is how consciousness works. It can't be outside the world unless you are God and God is bound by the law of love. — Gregory

Oh, thanks. Now I see. All crystal clear now. Cleary cleary clearingtons.

Your idea, which you have no arguments for, is that God is bound by nothing and can annihilate himself. — Gregory

I do have an argument. Reason is not bound by the laws of reason for they are her laws and thus do not bind her. Reason is a person (for only a person can issue edicts or prescriptions or what have you, and the laws of Reason are edicts or prescriptions or what have you). And that person, becusae she is not bound by the laws of Reason, will be able to do anything. As being able to do anything includes being able to destroy oneself, she can destroy herself. (And no, she is not bound by laws that are herself, for as well as not making any sense - she's not a set of laws! - if it did make sense, it would make sense by virtue of conforming to a law of Reason, a law that it is in her gift to undo......thus, once more, she is in no way bound by anything or anyone).

Anyway, i think we are talking past one another, for I mean by an argument a set of premises that entail or at least provide some support for a conclusion. Whereas I think you must mean by an argument 'a set of nonsense or vacuous phrases put together in no particular order'.

Your idea that God can lessen his power stems from not understanding the Trinity. Your god doesn t seem to love anyone while my God love each other (sic) and overflows that to humans, implanting in them that God cannot change because the world is rational and raised up by the Trinity. Everything might disappear, even God, but as long as it exists the world is rational and a Trinity where one Person loses power makes no sense. Philosophy is based on rationality but you make Descartes error, who solved his cogito through his ontological argument which mistakes his soul for God

You have said nothing to address the issue.
I have explained in plain English why God can divest himself of his power - he can do anything and that includes that, obviously. That doesn't mean he ever has, just that he could. A being who could not divest themselves of something they had would not be able to do anything, would they?!?
It has nothing to do with love. It's just the logical implication of omnipotence.
The rest is just gibberish so far as I can tell. And Descartes did not mistake himself for God, which you'd know if you read him.

I've read Descartes's full work from 1642. He had dissociative problems. And how do you know God did not divest herself of power this morning? Is it possible she has no power know and you're free to be an atheist?