This is me and Hanover riding around trying to convert people to Mormonism. — frank

Which one is me?

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

I believe that what is logically impossible is impossible. — Leontiskos

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.

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. — Leontiskos

I'm pretty sure @Banno doesn't care about disproving any religious doctrine. He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, @Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions.

So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it. :smile:

accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. — frank

How about, it’s not merely beyond comprehension. There are things we can say about God.

Can you accept that? It would seem you could if you were asking someone to explain the Christian narrative. But then, are you honestly asking for anything new?

So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it. — frank

The Trinity is a mystery. It's three persons, each of which is fully God. I think you're trying to waffle on whether it's a contradiction or not. I'm not sure why you would want to do that. That it's contradictory is what makes it a mystery. — frank

You appear to be continually conflating "mystery," "mystical," and "involves analogical predication," with "involves recognizing a contradiction and then affirming it anyhow because of faith." That's the basic error here. Very few theologians of any influence have embraced the latter, particularly not within traditional Christianity. "Beyond human reason," does not imply "contrary to human reason."

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."

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.

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

So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it. — frank

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?

I don't believe Augustine thought of the Trinity as something humans can understand.

Augustine’s goal is not so much to understand the Trinity and communicate this to others, but rather to say some things that will deliver a small shred of understanding, which may entice the reader to pursue the experience of God (434–7 [XV.6.50–1]). Because of this dim view of what humans are equipped to understand, much of the book is actually about how to talk about the Trinity, rather than about the Trinity itself. We may at least confess the correct doctrine, even if only later we come to understand what we’ve been saying. — SEP

Augustine suggests that the standard creedal term “person” (Greek: hypostasis or prosopon; Latin: persona) is adopted simply so that something may be said in answer to the question “What is God three of?” (224–30 [VII.3], 241 [VIII.1.1], 398 [XV.1.5]) The term “person”, he thinks, signifies a genus, but it is one for which we can provide no species. In contrast, “divine essence” names neither a genus nor a species, and functions somewhat like a mass-term. It is supposed to be one in the items which share it, and to make them, in some sense, numerically one (Cross 2007). — SEP

In other words, the tools used to deny contradiction, person and essence, didn't mean anything to Augustine, other than to draw the triangular schematic in words. It doesn't make sense to say it's three persons and one essence, and Augustine knew that.

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.

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. — Leontiskos

I disagree.

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.

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated… infinite… eternal… And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal… Almighty is the Father… And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God….not three lords, but one Lord. As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity. (Anonymous Athanasian) — Athanasian Creed

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?

Deep in our hearts, the light of God is shining
On a soundless sea with no shore
---- Rumi

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

↪frank - I'll take that as a "no." — Leontiskos

Yep. No honest curiosity, or basic humble respect.

: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.

So Augustine claims the Trinity is beyond human understanding. Which part did he think was incomprehensible?

The same applies to God's essence!

What does?

According to Aquinas, God's essence is ineffable!

According to Aquinas, God's essence is ineffable — MoK

It's ineffable, but it's totally logical?

It's ineffable, but it's totally logical? — frank

You cannot prove such a God since you cannot discuss it!

You cannot prove such a God since you cannot discuss it! — MoK

That would make it more difficult, yes. :razz:

:rofl:



I don't know, you're the expert on Catholic theologians. I was under the impression that Augustine spent fifteen years working on a book on the Trinity which, from its opening lines, purports to be a defense of the Trinity against the sophistries of people who claim things like "I can show that it is a contradiction." But if it's actually saying: "yes, the Trinity is a contradiction," feel free to explain where it says this.

That wasn't very Christian, Timothy.

:lol:

This is quite the thread.

If you think “It’s a mystery” equates to “so there is nothing anyone can say” then why ask? — Fire Ologist

First of all, I think I differ a bit (slightly) from @Leontiskos and maybe @Count Timothy von Icarus.

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.

But we’ve heard enough of that on this thread already. Enough talking over each other’s heads.

To reset:

So what is a “self”? How is it that “you” and “me” are having this exchange; unless there is an identifiable “self” in each of us in which this “exchange” is taking place?

But “self” is a mystery, no? Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, (because the concept of self-identity is perilous if not illusory and really not coherent and not a conversation about any “thing”.)

Mystery abounds, and the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.

I just don’t thereby conclude from the contradiction that the subject of the mystery does not exist. I conclude I need to keep figuring out a way to talk about it.

Contradiction is a dead end, but only along one line of reasoning. We can hit the dead end, and reset to try another way.

I don’t ignore Freud because he divided the self into id, ego and superego, for instance. We can rationally consider Freud, and the difference between the superego and the id in the conscious and subconscious self, for instance, even though billions of people say the self is an illusion (including in many ways, me).

So @frank do you really wonder about the Christian narrative? Do you really wonder how some Christian can rationally discuss the “Trinity”, like Freud may have discussed a “self”?

Here is a premise: logic is like one of the senses; you can rely on it to penetrate the world, and live by it most days, but every so often it leads down a dead end (mirage/set of all sets, the infinite continuum of impossible becoming), even unto death and madness.

So maybe, sometimes, regarding some situations and certain subjects, relying ONLY on our senses and our reason will not deliver us from the dead end. Maybe beings like us have more that penetrates experience besides reason. Or our senses. We have understanding that usually follows after reason, but can understand and not know why or how just as well.

Logic isn’t God to me. It’s just a tool, like an eyeball.

Sometimes we can relate with things through our ears, but don’t see or can’t picture them at all. Other times we can relate to things that make no logical sense. That doesn’t mean those things can’t be seen; or can’t be logically explained (by me); but absent that vision or logic, it also doesn’t mean those things can’t can’t be beheld and talked about in other ways (by me).

To say “it’s a mystery” is still to logically identify an “it”. All logic isn’t lost in the notion of three persons in one God. It’s just not that simple.

Have I already abused language too much for you?

Not worthy of reply?

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).

To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain:

[God’s] Omnipotence means the power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power. If you chose to say “God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,” you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can.” It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but non-entities. It is no more possible for God than the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.