Are you in high school?

No. Did you attend one?

Or you could try reading Descartes. — Bartricks

Been there, done that

I suppose if you've arrogantly allowed yourself the luxury of ignoring what he atctually said - — Bartricks

then you can get anything you jolly well like from it. — Bartricks

False. A teacher can sense where a student is going without going by the students exact words for example

And which was the first one you understood? — Bartricks

Every word

That's not what I said. I said you wrote some nauseating things about love. You seem to have serious difficulty respecting what people actually say. Maybe you should stick to reading people's actual words and not deciding in advance that you understand them already. — Bartricks

And then you said in contradiction:

Why on earth do you think God loves you? Odd. You live in ignorance in a dangerous world - you think someone who loves you would do that to you? What a remarkable but horribly self serving lack of insight you show. When someone gives you the bird, do you think they're telling you you're no. 1 or something? — Bartricks

And then:

How is that an explanation? How is it anything? It's just a kind of woolly nothing. Are you saying that there are three distinct people - three separate minds - who love each other? How are they all one mind, then? And how does simplicity have anything to do with this? — Bartricks

You don't want to learn. That is why I asked if you were in high school

And just to recap:

You said (with that bizarre confidence that infects the ignorant) that Descartes published his Meditations in 1642.

It was 1641.

You then said you meant he wrote it in 1641 and published it the following year.

He didn't. He wrote it over many years and published it in 1641.

You then said you meant the French edition. — Bartricks

False. I said it was published in 1642 because I thought the French edition was published then. Why is that hard to understand. Why are you making things difficult and don't want to learn? You just try to zing people on this forum and beat your "arguments" over people's heads and don't listen to other people as if you were a dissociative youth

Yes and got a 1330 on the SAT

I’ve read what you’ve written, but you won’t reply to my objections, or answer my questions. Why is that?

Descartes himself said that God was necessary, eternal, and timeless. This is the highest being conceivable and Descartes thought it must exist a priori. His position on this is analogous to Aquinas's 4th Way. What is most perfect must be. I don't accept it as proof because I believe the senses are more reliable than intellect.

Yes and got a 1330 on the SAT — Gregory

I have no idea what that means. But well done you! Who's a good boy!!

False. A teacher can sense where a student is going without going by the students exact words for example — Gregory

Okay - so in your mind Descartes is the pupil and you're the teacher. Well, you did do 1330 sitting down.

And which was the first one you understood?
— Bartricks

Every word — Gregory

The first philosophy book you understood was every word? Hmm.

That's not what I said. I said you wrote some nauseating things about love. You seem to have serious difficulty respecting what people actually say. Maybe you should stick to reading people's actual words and not deciding in advance that you understand them already.
— Bartricks

And then you said in contradiction:

Why on earth do you think God loves you? Odd. You live in ignorance in a dangerous world - you think someone who loves you would do that to you? What a remarkable but horribly self serving lack of insight you show. When someone gives you the bird, do you think they're telling you you're no. 1 or something?
— Bartricks

And then:

How is that an explanation? How is it anything? It's just a kind of woolly nothing. Are you saying that there are three distinct people - three separate minds - who love each other? How are they all one mind, then? And how does simplicity have anything to do with this?
— Bartricks

You don't want to learn. That is why I asked if you were in high school — Gregory

There's nothing contradictory about anything in any of those quotes from me. Or is this a case of you - the teacher - knowing where his pupil - me - was going? Even if I didn't actually say anything contradictory, you know that I meant something contradictory?

You think you can teach me anything? So far I've learnt from you that Descartes thought he was God (he didn't), that he published his famous 5 meditations in 1642 (it was 6 meditations and it was published in 1641) and that the French edition came out in 1642 (it came out in 1647), and that you have a special 6th Cartesian sense that allows you to know what Descartes meant regardless of the words dummy Descartes used to express himself.

And you still haven't provided me with any kind of explanation of how divine simplicity does anything whatsoever to dispel concerns about the coherence of the trinity.

so in your mind Descartes is the pupil and you're the teacher. — Bartricks

Did i not say "for example"

And you still haven't provided me with any kind of explanation of how divine simplicity does anything whatsoever to dispel concerns about the coherence of the trinity. — Bartricks

You believe God is contingent (contra Descartes) and perhaps don't understand God yet, so maybe your not at the place to discuss the Trinity. You think you know everything.

"On the other hand, let us suppose that the divine substance is the cause of the accident inhering in it. Now it is impossible that it be, as the same thing would make itself to be actual in the same respect. Therefore, if there is an accident in God, it will be according to different respects that he receives and causes that accident, just as bodily things receive their accidents through the nature of their matter and cause them through their form... Hence, whatever is in Him is there in the most noble way. Now, what a thing itself is, this belongs to it in a most perfect way. For this is something more perfectly one than when something is joined to something else substantially as form to matter; just as substantial union is more perfect than when something inheres in something else as accident. God, then, is therefore whatever He has" Aquinas

perhaps don't understand God yet, so maybe your not at the place to discuss the Trinity. You think you know everything. — Gregory

So, er, just to be clear: despite having nothing remotely coherent to say about the trinity and despite confidently getting Descartes wrong at every turn - even down to the number of meditations - you 'still' think you're the one in the know and I'm the ignorant one? I know more than you about these things - demonstrably. That is not equivalent to knowing everything. It is only because you overestimate what you know that you think it is.

And once more, you don't understand Descartes' ontological argument. Bachelors necessarily lack wives. That does not mean that if you're a bachelor your lack of wife is a necessary feature of you such taht you are incapable of having one. It means, rather, that the absence of a wife is essential to the idea of a bachelor, and thus to entertain the idea of a bachelor is to entertain the idea of a wifeless man. Similarly, when Descartes says that God exists of necessity, he means that existence is essential to the idea of God, and can no more be separated from it than the idea of a lacking a wife can be taken away from the idea of a bachelor. He does not mean that the person of God lacks the power not to exist. That would, once more, be like thinking that because bachelors necessarily lack a wife, the person of a bachelor is incapable of acquiring a wife. So, 'God exists of necessity' should be understood de dicto, not de re.

If you knew your Descartes, you'd know that held to my (and Jesus') view of omnipotence - namely that it involves being able to do absolutely anything at all, without any restriction from logic. And if you could reason in a straight line then you'd know that he cannot think that God is incapable of taking himself out of existence, for that would be a restriction. Thus God is, by virtue of being omnipotent, capable of destroying himself. And thus his existence is contingent, not necessary. But the idea of God contains the idea of existence and thus to entertain the idea of God with understanding is to understand that God exists (not, note, an argument I endorse - I am a fan of Descartes, but that doesn't mean I endorse every argument he ever made).

As for the Aquinas quote - not sure what work you want it to do.

So, 'God exists of necessity' should be understood de dicto, not de re. — Bartricks

Prove that Descartes meant this then

I don't accept it as proof because I believe the senses are more reliable than intellect. — Gregory

On what basis? Either it is clear to you that there is reason to think that the senses are more reliable than the intellect, in which case you are relying on your intellect and demonstrate only that your intellect is not very great; or you think there is no reason whatsoever to think the senses are more reliable than the intellect, but believe it anyway. In which case you are just asserting things and not providing any evidence in support of them.

So, as ever, your position is confused. But you'd have to be better at reasoning than you are in order to be able to realize this and do something about it.

Similarly, when Descartes says that God exists of necessity, he means that existence is essential to the idea of God, and can no more be separated from it than the idea of a lacking a wife can be taken away from the idea of a bachelor. — Bartricks

That is the argument in the 4th meditation. In the 3rd one who says the idea of God is so perfect that we can't have an idea of it without it existing. It goes from self-referencing thoughts to God. That is the foundation of the latter argument

If you knew your Descartes, you'd know that held to my (and Jesus') view of omnipotence - namely that it involves being able to do absolutely anything at all, without any restriction from logic. And if you could reason in a straight line then you'd know that he cannot think that God is incapable of taking himself out of existence, for that would be a restriction. Thus God is, by virtue of being omnipotent, capable of destroying himself. — Bartricks

This is a statement, not argument

Either it is clear to you that there is reason to think that the senses are more reliable than the intellect, in which case you are relying on your intellect and demonstrate only that your intellect is not very great; or you think there is no reason whatsoever to think the senses are more reliable than the intellect, but believe it anyway. In which case you are just asserting things and not providing any evidence in support of them. — Bartricks

You're thinking in a line

That is the argument in the 4th meditation. In the 3rd one who says the idea of God is so perfect that we can't have an idea of it without it existing. It goes from self-referencing thoughts to God. That is the foundation of the latter argument — Gregory

Why are you doing this? Is it not yet apparent to you that you're talking to someone who knows Descartes well and understands him far better than you do? You're like a parrot, just squawking things without understanding.

Why are you doing this? Is it not yet apparent to you that you're talking to someone who knows Descartes well and understands him far better than you do? You're like a parrot, just squawking things without understanding. — Bartricks

You misunderstood his third Meditation. He had two arguments for God.

Your rationalism will fail you. God can do anything whatsoever and at the same time cannot lower his power. You don't know of theology works

Prove that Descartes meant this then — Gregory

I did. You could read Descartes and then you'd know. You'd know Descartes thought God could do anything. You'd know that 'anything' includes destroying himself. And so you'd know that therefore the person of God does not 'have' to exist, anymore than the person of a bachelor 'has' to lack a wife.

'Prove it!' the clarion call of the idiot.

You'd know that 'anything' includes destroying himself. — Bartricks

False. You don't know about theology

Also, please explain the difference between the argument for God in the Third meditation and the one in the Fourth. Thank

You misunderstood his third Meditation. He had two arguments for God — Gregory

Er, yes. I know. You were talking about his ontological argument. So I pointed out how you'd misunderstood it. How does the fact he had two arguments show that I was confused?? Only someone intellectually challenged could think such a thing.

How does the fact he had two arguments show that I was confused?? Only someone intellectually challenged could think such a thing. — Bartricks

Because you don't understand his argument for God. First he says in the 3rd Meditation that he has an idea of a perfect being. Then he says the substance in this idea must correspond to something. It can't correspond to the world because the world is not perfect. So God must have implanted this idea in him. THEN and only then does it go on latter to say the definition of God is that which must exist, which again contradicts what you say btw. So two arguments he gave. One from the substance of his idea (from intuition) and the other from a priori logic. Live and learn

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. — Bartricks

That a lump of clay can have different properties at different times - such as ‘being cuboid’ and then ‘being spherical’ - is a result of 3D restructuring due to interaction between the clay and an external process. That a person can have different properties at different times - such as ‘being pink’ and then ‘being blue’ - is a result of temporal restructuring due to internal interactions in the organism. That a body, a human being and a mind/person can all be the same ‘Bartricks’ is the result of conceptual restructuring due to one’s perception of that person.

If a person is perceived as just a body, then both their humanity and the potential of their mind are ignored as aspects of being a person. They don’t lose those aspects, they are merely perceived in ignorance of those aspects. In the same way, a person can perceive themselves as a human being, but have only a partial awareness of the potential of their mind.

On another level, ‘God’ can be conceived as a mind/person, but it’s only one aspect of the possibility of this idea. Similarly, ‘God’ can be perceived as a human being in ignorance of both their full potential as a mind/person and their relation to this idea.

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. — Bartricks

Ideas and concepts are commonly mistaken for synonyms. Ideas are a relation to formless possibility/impossibility, or pure imagination. They transcend concepts, and must be subsumed within a conceptual structure or system in order to be useful. Language is one conceptual system. Aesthetics is another. Each human mind, too, is a conceptual system. The same idea has a different form by interacting with different conceptual systems.

So, we are talking about conception of an idea. The idea of an idea is still an idea, and remains beyond language.

God as person or mind is conceptual, as is Bartricks. But Bartricks is also a human being, or at least potentially a being with human properties (as far as I can tell from here). And Bartricks is also a body, although not just a body, and not just a human being. But what constitutes this ‘Bartricks’ - with which others interact - is an interrelation of ideas, not the person, not the mind. That I have a complete conceptual understanding of Bartricks would be an incorrect assumption. That YOU have a complete and accurate conceptual understanding of Bartricks would also be an incorrect assumption - of course, you ARE a complete conceptual understanding of Bartricks, but that’s not the same thing. And while it is almost certain that your understanding of Bartricks includes information that mine does not, it is at least possible that my understanding of Bartricks includes information that yours does not.

So there exists an idea of Bartricks that is not just the person, not just the mind. And accuracy in our understanding doesn’t preclude the possibility of its existence as such. But you and I have little in the way of shared qualities of experience in relation to this particular idea.

I may, however, have shared qualities of experience in relation to the idea of ‘Bartricks’ with other posters on this forum. I can discuss the idea of ‘Bartricks’ with them, and through the interrelation of these ideas, we can form a concept of ‘Bartricks’ - one which probably differs to some extent from the concept that you have of Bartricks. Now, I can argue that there are elements of truth in both concepts, but these concepts are only potentially Bartricks the person, the mind. And yes, it is more likely that your concept has more accuracy, but neither concept is entirely Bartricks. So, the person or mind that is Bartricks exists in relation to an idea - or more accurately, an interrelation of ideas.

So, while you can say that ‘God is a person/mind’, this assertion is conceived from a limited interrelation of ideas, reduced to a conceptual structure or statement.

Except it’s not your assertion. You don’t believe this statement to be true, and you don’t much care either way. You’re looking at the conceptual structure in a logical way, regardless of its truth value, its relation to any idea.

Yet for someone who can experience it as true (regardless of whether it is or not), this statement is only one qualitative aspect of ‘God’. Their relation to this idea extends beyond the conceptual or logical structure of this statement, in the same way we experience that a human being is not just a body. ‘God’ is not just a person, not just a mind. ‘God’ is a relation to an idea. And the person, the mind described in the statement is a limited conception of this idea.

Language doesn’t help us much here, and nor does logic. ‘The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao’. Every statement, expression or thought we can make about ‘God’, the ‘Tao’, the ‘One’, the ‘Absolute’, etc subsumes the idea under a conceptual system. Any idea potentially exists only as a conception in relation to the idea. So most of this will not make much sense - especially if your own conceptual structure is limited by logic, which is limited by language. But then, I’m not really arguing against you. I just don’t think your argument, while logical, is as solid as you think it is.

What if the sancta trinitas (unus Deus) is meant to open the door to, à la non-Euclidean geometry, non-classical logic where the law of identity is not a law.

Also what if logical nihilism and its counterparts (paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, etc.) are, how shall I put it?, theological logic, designed as it were to "make sense" of religion but then that could be just the beginning of something even...grander(?) in an Alice in Wonderland way.

What if [insert speculative gibberish] was blah?

What if [insert speculative gibberish] was blah? — emancipate

It isn't impossible but do note that what applies to one human applies to all (gonna get into trouble for this) unless there are gods (omnipotent) hidden among us but then we're back in contradiction land.

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. — Pinprick

That 3-in-1 doctrine was a rationalization of a logical contradiction. It was thought necessary to resolve some arguments among early Christians from different streams of Jewish and Apostolic influence. Some interpreted Father & Son literally, as two beings. But the abstract Jewish doctrine of divine unity (Monotheism) would not allow God to share god-hood with anyone else. Ironically, Yawheh was originally a son of El, in Hebrew theology. So, the Trinity was an attempt to justify Polytheism within the larger context of Monotheism.

And one result of that miraculous conception was to multiply sub-deities in the form of Christian Saints, playing the role of Roman gods. Consequently, Trinity -- like wine as the blood of Christ -- must be accepted metaphorically in one sense, and literally in another. Most people seem to be flexible enough in their beliefs to juggle such counter-intuitive notions, even though they don't really understand them.

Ironically, atheist Physicists must do a similar juggling act with Quantum non-mechanics, such as Wave-Particle duality, and Quarks as 3-in-1 sub-particles, that are never seen separately -- unlike Superman, who is never seen together with Clark Kent. In super-nature, and quantum probability, all things are possible. :razz:

POLYTHEISM BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS FISHY

Wave-Particle duality — Gnomon

Nor a wavicle, either, but a quantum field.

Wave-Particle duality — Gnomon
Nor a wavicle, either, but a quantum field. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Physicsts must believe in a non-empirical invisible Field that is the essence of empirical Reality.
Note -- just kidding. Since I believe that invisible Information is the essence of reality, accepting the metaphor of a mathematical field is no problem. But it makes me hungry for breakfast. :joke:

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. ” ― Lewis Carroll

Thanks!

The Trinity was an attempt to justify Polytheism within the larger context of Monotheism. — Gnomon

Another point to recall is that there are threefolds in many different religious traditions.

The Hindu trinity has Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer.

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, the trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies”), is the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (body of enjoyment), the heavenly mode; and the nirmanakaya (body of transformation), the earthly mode, the Buddha as he appeared on earth or manifested himself in an earthly bodhisattva, an earthly king, a painting, or a natural object, such as a lotus.

There are numerous examples of three-fold deities in other ancient and not well known religious cultures.

I think the Jungian analysis is the most cogent - that these are all reflections of structures in the archetypal level of the collective unconscious (although it would be a mistake to think this is a reductive explanation, i.e. it doesn't make them less real.)

Is three more numerous in pantheons within the scope of religious studies? I would like to see a list of the religions and see how many had 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.