You mistake my claim, which is that the spiritual is unreasonable. In matters of fact, truth and reason are king and queen; in matters of faith, beauty and goodness. What extraordinary folly to be reasoning whether there is one love or three or three in one - there is no love, therefore one must believe in it. — unenlightened

There are 3 ways one can believe something to be true and act accordingly

1. Fact - prior to the world of Trump anyway facts just are. 2 + 2 = 4. One can not argue facts. They just are.

2. Reason - based on facts, one can use ones ability to reason propositions one believes to be true. I believe there is no such thing as a unicorn on earth. That is not a fact, but it is reasonable to believe it is true and act accordingly. Reasoned beliefs can not be in opposition to facts

3 faith. - one can by faith alone believe something to be true, and act accordingly. Beliefs based on faith cannot be in opposition to fact, or reason

Facts are the realm of science, reason is the realm of philosophy and faith is the realm of theology. All equally valid and real in their own nature

That might be a fair characterization of Geach's motivation for coming up with the thesis of the relativity of identity. But that would be a bad mischaracterization of Wiggins' thesis of the sortal dependency of identity since the purpose of the latter was to disentangle the philosophical insight embodied in Geach's flawed thesis from Geach's own motivation to salvage a particular Christian doctrine. — Pierre-Normand

I say nothing of the validity of the thesis, which I know nothing about. What I find interesting is the belief that it's necessary to find a way to account for the text--in this case, the belief that although the Trinity seems to make no sense, it must make sense, so we must find a way for it to make sense, and the only way to do that is to provide an explanation which is lacking in the text. This tells us something about the text and also those who revere it.

Just a quick point. The divinity of Jesus, and the trinity as a belief of the church was a product of Nicea. This was a Catholic doctrine. In Catholicism there is no difference in authority between scripture and apostolic tradition. The concept of sola scriptua is post reformation

Thanks for the reference.

It's my understanding that most Protestants accept the Trinity, however. The First Council of Nicaea took place long before the Reformation, so I don't know if the doctrine of the Trinity can be characterized as solely "a Catholic doctrine" unless it has since been rejected by all Protestant communities.

Triple Goddesses occur in many religious belief systems, some long-predating the Christian Trinity. The concept doesn't seem unusual or novel. :chin:

understand - and you are correct the trinity is generally believed by all Christians. My point was in reference to yours in it was ex scripture. Which was not a doctoral issue at Nicea, or with Catholics.

My understanding is that the Gospel of John, at least, in which Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one", was used to contest the claims of the Arians at the Council.

↪Ciceronianus the White Triple Goddesses occur in many religious belief systems, some long-predating the Christian Trinity. The concept doesn't seem unusual or novel. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

There certainly were triads of gods and goddesses and they may have influenced the conception of the Trinity. Early Christianity assimilated a great deal.

the thesis, which I know nothing about. What I find interesting is the belief that it's necessary to find a way to account for the text--in this case, the belief that although the Trinity seems to make no sense, it must make sense, so we must find a way for it to make sense, and the only way to do that is to provide an explanation which is lacking in the text. This tells us something about the text and — Ciceronianus the White

My whole point on apostolic tradition was in ref to this. Your own point below on the quote from John also seems in contradiction to your point above.

Early Christianity assimilated a great deal. — Ciceronianus the White

"Assimilated" is a ... good word for it.... :wink:

My whole point on apostolic tradition was in ref to this. Your own point below on the quote from John also seems in contradiction to your point above. — Rank Amateur

I don't understand what you're saying, in that case. As for the Gospel of John, it like other parts of the Bible contains language which made it necessary to come up with the concept of the Trinity. If Jesus is one with the Father, how can he be the Son? Did the Father die on the cross? If Jesus is the Father, does that mean Jesus existed before he was born?

The concept of the Trinity makes it possible for apologists to say Jesus is the Son of the Father, but he's the Father too in the sense that both are the same God but also different Persons. God didn't die on the cross--God's "mode of existence" or something or other which is the Jesus Person did. So, problem solved!

That was the Athanasian position, which became orthodoxy. The Gospel of John was used to rebut the Arian belief. The Arian belief can find support in the Bible as well, however, as Jesus frequently distinguishes himself from the Father and not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, though efforts were later made to find reference to his coming.

since triune (where 3=1) is illogical and contradictory on its face. — Hanover

Please prove that human logic would be binding on a God.

HUMAN: A single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

GOD: Proposed to be something like the source of everything everywhere.

Unless you can prove that something as small as human logic would be binding upon something as large as a god, then gotchas like "illogical" and "contradictory" are basically meaningless.

The fatal flaw in atheism is not that it rejects theism, but that it rejects it's own most fundamental principles.

Unless you can prove that something as small as human logic would be binding upon something as large as a god, then gotchas like "illogical" and "contradictory" are basically meaningless. — Jake

Well, no. What's illogical would still be illogical, and what's contradictory would still be contradictory. We've defined what those words mean, you see, and have no "God Logic" to refer to for different definitions. What you're claiming is that God isn't bound by the rules of logic, and can be "contradictory" (e.g., something and something else at the same time, I suppose).

My guess would be this claim wouldn't impress many atheists.

Well, no. What's illogical would still be illogical, and what's contradictory would still be contradictory. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed, but it still hasn't been proven that these human concepts would be binding on a creator of everything everywhere, should such a thing exist.

What you're claiming is that God isn't bound by the rules of logic, — Ciceronianus the White

To be more precise I'm claiming that it has not been proven that a God would be bound by the rules of logic. I'm doing the very same thing atheists reasonably do, declining to accept things on faith, asking for proof etc.

My guess would be this claim wouldn't impress many atheists. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed. That's because they're often not really that interested in reason, but in ideology, and typically don't understand the difference between the two. That's why I said...

The fatal flaw in atheism is not that it rejects theism, but that it rejects it's own most fundamental principles. Many or most atheists accept as a matter of faith (ie. without proof) that the rules of human reason are automatically binding on everything everywhere. By accepting this as a matter of faith they are heretics to their own chosen methodology.

Theology is incoherent?

Surely not.

To be more precise I'm claiming that it has not been proven that a God would be bound by the rules of logic. — Jake

I think that's an excellent position. It was the position of Immanuel Kant, a devout theist who essentially said that we were incapable of doing any reasoning about God.

It does however mean that any statements of belief in the trinity, or indeed about any aspect of God whatsoever, must be acknowledged by those making them to be pure items of faith, not reasoned as they are so often presented to be.

Further, the statements are meaningless because statements about something are only meaningful if they have consequences, and consequences depend on logic, which we have just agreed may not be applicable.

So I think the welter of theological reasoning about the trinity and other items of dogma should be replaced by the following simple statement, by those that like the trinity idea :

'when I think of God I think of like a sort of three-fold thingy'

Now that's theology I can respect!

Something like that is the only way it could be made to work; but even "a three-fold thingy" is a step too far. Consider:

How many things do your see? Three? But that means not counting the middle circle; Four? then it's not a trinity. One? Then whence the division?

Nothing sensible can be said about the trinity.

On reflection upon Banno's diagram, I wonder what's so mysterious or illogical about the Trinity. Trinities are everywhere.
The following one looks perfectly logical to me.



If anybody wants to complain of equivocation we can proceed to examine what emerges in an investigation of such a complaint.

Banno's diagram — andrewk

It's not mine. But I will take the credit, if you insist.

Trinities are everywhere.
The following one looks perfectly logical to me. — andrewk

Your comment may be tongue in cheek but you remark relies on interpreting "non est" as the negation of numerical identity and "est" as the copula rather than the affirmation of numerical identity.

Indeed - that's exactly what I'm angling for.

My response is that it is impossible to interpret the 'est' to mean 'equals', because the equals relation is transitive and the est relation in the diagram is non-transitive. So it must be some other meaning of est. I chose the 'is a member of the class...' interpretation, but any other interpretation, whether in current use or not, would do as well.

My response is that it is impossible to interpret the 'est' to mean 'equals', because the equals relation is transitive and the est relation in the diagram is non-transitive. — andrewk

Either that or, as I suggested earlier, following Peter Geach, one endorses a relative conception of the relation of numerical identity between substances. I don't endorse that, myself, but I am not committed either to defend the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

I think that's an excellent position. It was the position of Immanuel Kant, a devout theist who essentially said that we were incapable of doing any reasoning about God. — andrewk

To be a bit more precise, we are clearly capable of reasoning about God, but we have no way of knowing how relevant that process might be to the reality.

It does however mean that any statements of belief in the trinity, or indeed about any aspect of God whatsoever, must be acknowledged by those making them to be pure items of faith, not reasoned as they are so often presented to be. — andrewk

Will atheists make the same acknowledgement?

THEISTS: Are holy books the word of God? There is no proof, so such a claim is faith.

ATHEISTS: Is human reason applicable to everything everywhere? There is no proof, so such a claim is faith.

See? Both sides are doing the same thing, accepting the validity of their chosen authority without proof, as a matter of faith.

It's interesting to see that even those that reject faith, sometimes adamantly, are themselves using faith. This suggests that there is a deep human need to know, or at least create the illusion of knowing. It may also suggest that by offering a method of creating that illusion of knowing theists have been addressing and serving the human condition in a fairly realistic manner. The evidence of this is that even in the age of science faith based religion continues to flourish all over the world.

Of course it's also true that religion doesn't work for everybody, and probably never has. And so many people are required to look for other authorities to have faith in, other methods of creating the illusion of knowing.

THEISTS: Are holy books the word of God? There is no proof, so such a claim is faith.

ATHEISTS: Is human reason applicable to everything everywhere? There is no proof, so such a claim is faith.

See? Both sides are doing the same thing, accepting the validity of their chosen authority without proof, as a matter of faith. — Jake

You don't need to convince me that all humans rely on faith. David Hume demonstrated that conclusively in the eighteenth century. Hume was accused of being an atheist, and many these days suspect he was, but of course he did not say so, as doing so at the time was tantamount to suicide.

In your last sentence you seem to be implying that all atheists believe that human reason is applicable to everything everywhere. Such an application would be wrong. Many atheists reject that idea, starting with Thomas Nagel and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

You don't need to convince me that all humans rely on faith. — andrewk

Ok, cool, so I'll ask again...

Will atheists make the same acknowledgement you are requesting of theists? Which was...

It does however mean that any statements of belief in the trinity, or indeed about any aspect of God whatsoever, must be acknowledged by those making them to be pure items of faith, not reasoned as they are so often presented to be. — andrewk

I'm not disagreeing with your request quoted above, I'm just asking if we are going to apply this equally to all parties to the debate, given that it appears to be agreed that all parties are operating from faith.

As example, if an atheist wishes to discuss "any aspect of God whatsoever" such as perhaps a claim that no such God exists, should they acknowledge that their claim is a "pure item of faith", and "not reasoned as they are so often presented to be"?

Ok, cool, so I'll ask again...

Will atheists make the same acknowledgement you are requesting of theists? Which was... — Jake

I have already answered that.

Some atheists do and some atheists don't.

Just like Christians.

The Trinity was the primary subject of the First Council of Nicaea, presided over by Constantine. — Ciceronianus the White

My understanding is different. I have held that the person who had the final say in what was kept and what was not was not Constantine, but some other fellow - who wasn't even Christian. Cannot remember his name off the top of my head. Too lazy to look it up.

How many things do your see? Three? But that means not counting the middle circle; Four? then it's not a trinity. One? Then whence the division?

Nothing sensible can be said about the trinity. — Banno

The diagram can have plenty said about it that is sensible. The center is the existential commonality between three distinct manifestations of that commonality.

Some atheists do and some atheists don't. — andrewk

Care to answer for yourself?