But we would agree that the Trinity is in conflict with reason so should not be an act of faith?

Sure - The God of the christian bible is outside reason, there is no reasonable argument to support this definition of God, however it is not in conflict with reason to believe in such a being - all reasonable arguments against God, have valid counter arguments.

I would not agree - until you can make me a argument with propositions that are true, that ends in the conclusion that follows " therefor it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity" I am free to believe in such a thing as the trinity by faith alone.

I make that case here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/241257

I would like an answer to my follow up please gentlemen, Im asking earnestly and not to prop up a future argument against faith.

thought i did with this

Sure - The God of the christian bible is outside reason, there is no reasonable argument to support this definition of God, however it is not in conflict with reason to believe in such a being - all reasonable arguments against God, have valid counter arguments. — Rank Amateur

Ah, ok. Didnt realize it was directed at me, I see it now thanks.

that in no way address the point.

Stop and give it some thought, and then make me a formal argument that ends in the conclusion " therefor it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity" As others have tried to tell you, the trinity is outside human reason, but that does not put it in conflict with human reason - unless you can make that case.

my bad - didn't reply mea culpa

To help some - If one can by faith alone, and not in conflict with fact or reason believe in the God of the Christian bible, one can logically believe such a God can if it so chooses to be such a thing as the Trinity.

So to show it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity, you would have to show it is unreasonable to believe in God.

Although some very smart people would love such an argument to exist, they have yet been able to make it - and not from lack of trying.

I think your issue is, to you, being outside reason - means it is in conflict with reason. They are not the same thing. I would be happy to agree, as I have before that the God of the Christian Bible is outside reason. But as above that does not mean it is in conflict with reason - until such an argument can be made.

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. — DiegoT

Yes, I think the Trinity is relevant only to theologians that have sufficient hubris to believe they can understand the nature of God. If they had kept their arcane 'investigations' to themselves there would have been no harm done. Unfortunately, they forced it to be included it in their catechism, which all RCs are 'obliged to believe' (whatever that means):

"The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the 'hierarchy of the truths of faith'. — RC Catechism item 234

IMHO, their doing so is a perfect example of academic arrogance that shows contempt for the concerns of ordinary believers and no thought for the consequences of trying to forces their 'angels dancing on heads of pins' nonsense onto people to whom it is repellant. They miss the whole point of spirituality.

The Christians I admire appear to never waste a moment's thought on the so-called 'mystery of the trinity'

I´m the fool who argues fact. For me, 2+2 equal 4 is no more than a mathematical construct. It´s not a realistic, scientific way of approaching plurality in the real world; but we use it because it is convenient for accountancy, selling and buying, building machines and houses. However, someone at some point in our education should warn us that two plus two equals four does not describe reality existing outside our minds. It bothers me that everybody assumes that algorithm as something very real, even self-evident. It clearly is not, it is only evident when I´m counting money or doing similar abstract operations; but not when I look at nature.

do you believe there is any such things as facts? Is the cat really on the chair? Can we trust our senses to tell us anything of meaning? Are we all minds in a vat? Or plugged into the matrix? Or or or .....

I can be too pragmatic, but all those types of arguments are roads to nothing of use in my opinion.

do you believe there is any such things as facts? Is the cat really on the chair? Can we trust our senses to tell us anything of meaning? Are we all minds in a vat? Or plugged into the matrix? Or or or ..... — Rank Amateur

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but I will say my piece about this and leave it alone.

Physical reality independent of minds doesn’t distinguish between the cat and the chair (never mind that the cat has a mind as well). Reality without minds is an incoherent idea. You have to posit a mind to even talk about reality. If there were no minds, reality would be amorphous. It is our minds that divide up reality. Facts are articles of knowledge, an epistemic issue, not a metaphysical issue independent of minds.

I think DiegoT and I would agree on this. Now back to philosophy of religion, please. :)

so, did the Big Bang, the event, not exist until someone thought of it ?

What it was in reality independent of minds is something that cannot be conceived. If reality at the Planck length is uniform, and if we can posit that as a viewpoint (which would be positing a mind anyway), then we could say that nothing is the same as something. So, what would it even mean to say that the Big Bang is a mind independent fact?

Suppose you have two oranges on the table. From your human, practical, primate perspective it makes sense to say that there are two oranges; your stomach has a limited capacity, and you may want to share the oranges with other primates; so you focus on the bits of information that are very relevant for your behaviour when fruit is concerned. A cockroach will only see a lot more orange that she can chew, perhaps too little rotten for her taste.

However, these perspectives (that are made of bearing in mind certain bits of information and becoming oblivious to everything else) are not reality. When a human being needs to make sense of the universe beyond oranges, he needs to take into consideration more relationships in the phenomenal world, and that implies a more complex analysis that the one required to count pieces of food, which is something by the way that even bees do.

If you say that there are two oranges on the table, you are actually saying: there are two oranges, and there is the relationship between them and the combined effect of the two as a system: the sum of their gravitational force; the increased probability that a fruit fly finds them (as the combined aroma is a stronger signal), the ideas in your mind about oranges; the perturbation of the electromagnetic field; and so on. All of these factors would be different or disappear if the oranges are put in different locations of the universe. So the location of the two oranges on the table at the same time, that is: the relationship between the two items, is also real, and physical, and an element to take into consideration. Therefore, you have two oranges, plus the relationship of the oranges between them and their environment. It so happens that what makes oranges oranges and not stones, are also relationships; so the difference between two oranges and two oranges and their effect on the world is just the number of relationships, or operations in the physical world that you are willing to consider.

As this always happens with any number of items, we can deduce that it´s never 2 + 2=4, but 2+2 equal 4 plus the effects derived from existing 2 oranges on the table and not any other number.

So when we say that if I eat three chocolate bars there is one left, what we do is: to consider only the levels of reality more meaningful for us (not the atomic level, where there are no chocolate bars; not the astronomic level where only massive celestial bodies are in sight); and you are actively ignoring all that is has to do with eating three chocolate bars and being one left. Which might not be much, or it might be a sick stomach; but in any case it´s never equal to zero. It never really is. Say that instead of chocolate bars, we are talking gun shots directed to you from a pistol which still has one bullet in its barrel.

You may say that all those effects are trivial, but they are not, because we live in a world in which the flight of a butterfly can cause major changes given enough time. That is, a universe where everything is connected. When we teach that two plus two equals four for real, we are encouraging people to be oblivious to many connections that are relevant for our problems. We teach the young to encapsulate their thinking process in disconnected boxes, and to lose the capacity to take into account factors that might change how we understand a problem entirely. We are not supposed to do that; we are not bees or chickens counting flowers or grains. We are animals that build whole worlds in our minds, to see many more connections through holistic images of the natural (and psychic) realities; even if we focus on one or two at a time when engaged in a practical action.

ur What it was in reality independent of minds is something that cannot be conceived — Noah Te Stroete

That is redundant nonsense. What in independent reality can be seen if you eye can’t see it etc etc

I have no interest of a discussion on if there is or is not an independent reality. As fun as such dorm room, beer fueled conversations were. Because such discussions have no useful purpose. They are just wormholes to no where.

Redundant nonsense? Of course there is an independent reality. We just can’t say anything meaningful about it without assuming the existence of a mind. Perhaps that is why there is a need for God.

The Christians I admire appear to never waste a moment's thought on the so-called 'mystery of the trinity' — andrewk

To believe in X and to give a moment's thought about X are quite independent from each other.

you have lost me, which is not that difficult a task. I am 100 pct sure it is due to my ignorance. When I have some time I will reread and try to do a better job of understanding your point

Okay. It’s good that you are willing to try to understand my point, but I think we have gone far afield of the OP’s intent. I really don’t wish to convert anyone to my way of thinking, as you may have a point that it has no practical value. But, then again, most philosophy doesn’t have any practical value.

You do not have to assume a mind. It is the only thing you can be certain of in fact. So if you think you can base conclusions on that, then its redundent to state we cant know anything about independent reality without assuming a mind.
I think that is where it seemed like nonsense.

Gish gallop.

All right: most of the Christians I admire do not appear to believe, or to attempt to believe, Catechism 234.

One’s own mind is certain. Other minds need to be posited. And conceiving what the universe was like before minds assumes a hypothetical viewpoint/mind if not your own.

Ok, other minds must be posited, I agree with that. I do not think concieving of the universe before minds existed requires a hypothetical viewpoint or mind not your own any more than concieving about the universe with minds. Isnt that reinforced by the point I agreed to initially? The universe, like other minds, is posited and supported by evidence and consistency.

I’m not sure we understand each other, and we should just leave it be. The thread is about the Trinity after all.

Alright then.

"IMHO, their doing so is a perfect example of academic arrogance that shows contempt for the concerns of ordinary believers and no thought for the consequences of trying to forces their 'angels dancing on heads of pins' nonsense onto people to whom it is repellant. They miss the whole point of spirituality." I totally agree.

Scientists and intellectuals today, who were the bishops and priests of the Middle Ages, are also too arrogant and they take advantage of their position and knowledge to influence common people with their own ideas way more than it is fair and justified.