1. The father is God, the holy spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
3. There is only One God.

How is it that Jesus, the father, and the holy ghost are each fully God, distinct from each other, and there is only one God?

Walter are you interested in a theological discussion on the faith based belief in the trinity, or are you looking for a rational argument in defense of the trinity. If the former fine, if the latter it is just another form of the "prove to me "God is" to my satisfaction challenge. Rather a waste of time.

I want to know if it is logically coherent. I am not asking for anyone to prove it as true or false.

I personally don't believe it is heretical, but other Christians have condemned it as such and I am just repeated their opinion on the matter. — Walter Pound

I think that's where the problem lies. If the original teacher(s) didn't have a problem with it, why should the students be the ones to determine whether it is logical or not. Why not consult the teacher (or the teachings)?

I believe somewhere in the gospels Jesus gave an answer to what he meant by the son. I don't think the trinity is as literal as most people take it to be. To me, the trinity seems to be a symbolic/poetic representation rather than literal interpretation.

If, by faith, one believes that there is such a thing as the 3 O God, It is perfectly logical to believe that this Being could, if It so chooses to, to be such a thing as we describe as the trinity. In this case the logic would be:

there is such a thing as an omnipotent being
omnipotent meaning one can do anything
the trinity as defined is something
A being who can do anything can do something
A being such as this can be the trinity

There is no rational argument I know know off that I supports the existence of a an omnipotent being. So I do not think there is a rational argument outside faith that supports the trinity.

Questions 27-29.

I don't want to be too much of a curmudgeon, so here goes a short summary of each:

Q. 27 - what does it mean to say that there is procession (i.e. diversity) in God? What kind of diversity is there? Does it violate divine simplicity?

Q. 28 - Can there be relations within an absolutely simple God? How?

Q. 29 - Is it correct to apply the word "person" to these relations within the deity? Why?

You want an argument, but what is required is a revision of the meaning of the terms being used (and this cannot be done through argumentation). Take a chance and read what Aquinas has to say. Be assured that Aquinas is much, much smarter than Craig or van Inwegen or any other philosopher mentioned in the video.

And another caveat: regardless of the brains of Aquinas, this topic is not amenable to brute force, unaided by revealed wisdom. From a human (natural reason) viewpoint, Trinitarian dogma is an unnecessary hypothesis. It is not required to explain any data of nature, or any insight about the deity. Its usefulness arises as an instrument to interpret Scripture (particularly Jesus' teachings about his own role). People who do not accept those sayings have no use for Trinitarian dogma, and it is no wonder that they don't engage in the conceptual effort to reconfigure the terms being used so as to make the words adjust to the available data. But for those who take seriously stuff like "I and the Father are one", "Go and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", "I will send you a Paraclete", etc. Trinitarian dogma is among the most intriguing ideas to have crossed any human mind (and it opens up a wealth of metaphorical wisdom to deal with quite unrelated subjects).

How is the Real Madrid-Atlético de Madrid game the very same game in my smartphone, my tv set (which is very large) and my sister´s tablet in her apartment? It doesn´t make any sense.

As an enthusiast for David Bourland's language E-prime, which one obtains by removing all uses of versions of the verb 'to be' and synonyms thereof from the English language, I feel pleased to notice that one cannot even state the doctrine of the Trinity in that language.

Bourland had the view, which I think I share, that if a statement cannot be stated in E-prime, it has no meaning.

One can, however, state the more natural doctrine, which I conjecture most Christians intuitively feel, which says that God manifests in three different ways according to time and circumstance. We name those three different manifestations Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So far as I can see that version does not contradict any of the mentioned excerpts from the Bible.

PS: I wrote this post in E-Prime, or at least tried to. Please let me know if I missed a bit.

nerd.

lol

How is the Real Madrid-Atlético de Madrid game the very same game in my smartphone, my tv set (which is very large) and my sister´s tablet in her apartment? It doesn´t make any sense. — DiegoT

The issue here is that this is a false analogy. The father, son and holy spirit are all distinct from each other in a real sense and not in the sense of how we experience God. Thus, the father, son and holy spirit are each fully God, distinct from each other and yet there is only one God.

I appreciate the input.

The problem isn't the trinity, it is those who don't care to understand what is taught about the father, the son and the holy spirit.

...I am in the father and the father is in me...

- Jesus (from the Bible).

...I and the father are one...

- Jesus (from the Bible).

I don't know where people get their information about the trinity but I think their misrepresentation is what is heresy!

I don’t think it hangs together logically:

‘The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature”’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

So they are distinct, means they were distinct, means they have always been distinct. So how can they be the same substance?

Or where they once all one? But that is not consistent with them being coeternal.

So coeternal and of one substance are at odds.

I don’t think it hangs together logically: — Devans99

I don't think it is intended to, and logic has nothing at all to do with it. At least in Catholicism - it is referred to as the mystery of the Trinity - it is outside reason, it is a matter of faith.

I don't think it is intended to, and logic has nothing at all to do with it. At least in Catholicism - it is referred to as the mystery of the Trinity - it is outside reason, it is a matter of faith — Rank Amateur

I am a faithless heathen :grin: God quite probably exists sums up how I feel.

Is the trinity logically incoherent? — Walter Pound

Logically? Probably, yes. Outside of a strictly logical/scientific framework, it is coherent, just as the triple goddesses of history are. If you are trying to analyse spiritual matters in a logical fashion, I'm afraid you might be wasting your time. :roll:

what good has the Trinity for Christians? When I was a believer we prayed to God in the figure of God the Father, or sometimes Jesus, also the Virgin Mary which is so dear for Mediterranean people; or to those already dead that were supposed to have a better and more reliable signal to communicate with God wherever they were now. We never prayed to the Holy Ghost, poor thing! And we never dedicated a single minute to make sense of the Trinity in our meetings, readings or retreats in the mountains. I miss then why the Trinity problem is relevant for people that are not studying to become a priest and need to pass tests on Scholastic philosophy or the Fathers of the Church. What´s the big deal? Is it important in some Christian confessions? I know that it was important for Isaac Newton, almost as much as finding the true location of Atlantis hidden in the Torah.

I am a faithless heathen :grin: God quite probably exists sums up how I feel. — Devans99

Ha - no worries, I am not an evangelist. Just important to know from what basis the argument is coming from. It solves a lot of communication problems if this is clear.

So there are 3 ways one can believe something to be true, and act accordingly. Faith, Reason, or Fact.

Fact just is 2 + 2 = 4.
Reason - can not be in conflict with fact
Faith - can not be in conflict with fact or reason

Only a fool argues fact, and only a fool argues with him
All arguments based on reason are subject to argument
There is no basis at all to argue against faith - one is free to believe what one wants again as long as not in conflict with faith or reason

There is no basis at all to argue against faith - one is free to believe what one wants again as long as not in conflict with faith or reason — Rank Amateur

should be fact or reason - mea culpa

Faith - can not be in conflict with fact or reason — Rank Amateur

Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced.

Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced — Devans99

missed the point - if it is outside reason, it is not a valid faith based truth. People can believe anything - you even chose not to believe the mathematical definition of a point - because it didn't fit your position

you even chose not to believe the mathematical definition of a point - because it didn't fit your position — Rank Amateur

It's rather that it does not fit maths (leads to a divide by zero error) rather than it fits my position. So my argument stems from a believe in logic and the axioms of arithmetic. So I have faith in the axioms of arithmetic.

It's rather that it does not fit maths (leads to a divide by zero error) rather than it fits my position. So my argument stems from a believe in logic and the axioms of arithmetic. So I have faith in the axioms of arithmetic. — Devans99

I rest my case

Maybe it's better to say 'I induce the axioms of arithmetic are true from volumes of existing evidence' rather than 'I have faith in the axioms of arithmetic'? Or does that transfer faith to induction? I'm not sure thats quite right; its more I induce induction is reliable that I have faith in induction.

Just following the concersation here...could each of you define “faith” please? Having trouble following your points.

Faith is 100% belief in something without proof.

anything one believes to be true, and acts accordingly - that is outside fact and reason, but not in conflict with fact or reason.

And I presume you also dont have a reason in the same way you dont have proof under your definition?

Ok, follow up question: can you describe what you mean by “outside reason” as opposed to “not in conflict with reason”?