The basic idea was that God is everything. That's what Plotinus believed. — frank
No. Three persons who each are God, is one God. That’s unique information. — Fire Ologist
They believed God is everything. — frank
I was talking about Plotinus. — frank
This discussion is tied with a discussion of being.‘God is your being, but you are not His’ — Wayfarer
Fine. The use of Logos tells that it's related to Plato, the Stoics, and Philo. The basic idea was that God is everything. That's what Plotinus believed. I'm happy to give you the victory over sorting out what Catholics believe. — frank
The basic idea was that God is everything. — frank
They believed God is everything. — frank
In the sense that God is everything - God is the “in” and “with” of all things.
But in the sense that each separate thing is separate from each other (like this rock and that drink), each separate thing is not God and God is not that thing. — Fire Ologist
So now here’s the analytic side of it. Leontiskos does the above make sense to you? It’s not expressly dogma, or from someone else - just my attempt to speak about the Trinity and how is see it. Where is there blatant error and where is it correct?
I think you, @Leontiskos can check my math and see coherence with the basic doctrines in some of the above, see the logic of it. — Fire Ologist
(And you made a distinction between God as a category of being and God as the living being we know as God. And you talked of “the God” versus “God”. These are all necessary distinctions, but I think it can confuse this further. Meaning, I follow you, but I could see someone misconstruing that you are saying there is more than one God.). — Fire Ologist
What is a person? — Fire Ologist
So now here’s the analytic side of it. Leontiskos does the above make sense to you? It’s not expressly dogma, or from someone else - just my attempt to speak about the Trinity and how is see it. Where is there blatant error and where is it correct?
I think you, Leontiskos can check my math and see coherence with the basic doctrines in some of the above, see the logic of it.
— Fire Ologist
I think the general thrust is correct. — Leontiskos
What is a person?
— Fire Ologist
:up:
Aquinas sees this as the preliminary question to the whole discussion. — Leontiskos
In this case, “is” doesn’t mean numerical identity (as in "Clark Kent is Superman") but rather participation in a common essence. — Wayfarer
God is your being, but you are not HIs
'Essence' is 'what is essential to the being', from the Latin 'esse' 'to be'. So two men both 'participate' in the form 'man' even though they are numerically different men. — Wayfarer
How did I end up analogizing the Trinity to a single human person, and it jibes with Aquinas, but I didn’t go to Aquinas? Incoherence in the notion of a ‘Trinity’ would make this an utter accident. — Fire Ologist
Much of the confusion here seems the result of an over dependence on syllogistic logic, which cannot deal adequately with relations. — Banno
I'm not Catholic, but I am trying to portray what I think they would say. The Count has been scarce the last few days but I acknowledge that he has far greater knowledge of this than I do. — Wayfarer
So two men both 'participate' in the form 'man' even though they are numerically different men. — Wayfarer
But I think what I've said in the above posts acknowledges all of that. I said:
So two men both 'participate' in the form 'man' even though they are numerically different men. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.