Obviously, the societies of the time have something to do with the characteristics of their God, but I was interested in knowing what you thought about the idea of there actually existing only one God, which is identified under different names/personalities across all global religions. — Javants
Obviously, the societies of the time have something to do with the characteristics of their God, but I was interested in knowing what you thought about the idea of there actually existing only one God, which is identified under different names/personalities across all global religions. — Javants
No, many cultures don't accept monotheism. It's even arguable that Christianity isn't monotheistic entirely, especially Mormonism.Isn't that fundamental to the idea of "God", that there is only one God. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, many cultures don't accept monotheism. It's even arguable that Christianity isn't monotheistic entirely, especially Mormonism. — Hanover
Those cultures which are not monotheist don't believe in God, do they? — Metaphysician Undercover
I do know that Mormons find the concept of the trinity as set forth in Catholicism and most of Protestantism to be incoherent nonsense. — Hanover
This strikes me as a very non- Mormon comment. I'd expect their response to be that you've chosen to misinterpret the meaning of the trinity.As has been mentioned, in Christianity, the Trinity (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) is considered to be one being with three different 'faces'. As you said about Mormonism, some denominations of Christianity choose to interpret the Trinity as three separate beings. — Javants
Could the same not be true about polytheistic religions, without being explicitly stated? In other words, all the Gods of that pantheon are, in fact, just the different personalities of the same God, which are being perceived as different beings. — Javants
I think the idea of a single God that presents itself differently to different cultures is an interesting one, and so is the idea of multiple gods.Obviously, the societies of the time have something to do with the characteristics of their God, but I was interested in knowing what you thought about the idea of there actually existing only one God, which is identified under different names/personalities across all global religions. — Javants
The classical depiction of the Trinity:Some of us pretty much heretic protestants and catholics find the concept of the trinity kind of incoherent and nonsensical too. Press a priest and you get "It is a mystery." I'll say it's a mystery, all right. — Bitter Crank
If concepts are here taken to be abstract objects, then I would disagree with this contention, as abstract objects lack causal efficacy, and any God worth believing in does have such efficacy.Remember, God is supposed to be immaterial, having the same type of existence as a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
If concepts are here taken to be abstract objects, then I would disagree with this contention, as abstract objects lack causal efficacy, and any God worth believing in does have such efficacy. — Arkady
If concepts are taken to be mental states of some sort, then this analogy may be closer to the mark, provided we do not adhere to an identity theory of mind, wherein mental states are identical to the physical states which realize them (as that would imply that God is physical, contradicting the premise that he's immaterial). — Arkady
I said that if concepts are taken to be abstract objects, then they lack causal efficacy, by definition of abstract object.You don't think that the concept of a circle, pi, the right angle, or the Pythagorean theorem have any causal efficacy? I beg to differ. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then you have an idiosyncratic definition of the term, which is at odds with its actual usage in philosophy. That being the case, then I see no point in continuing to talk about it, as a conversation in which the participants don't even agree on the definitions of basic terminology is bound to be unfruitful.Well I probably don't agree with your definition of "abstract object" then. — Metaphysician Undercover
That being the case, then I see no point in continuing to talk about it, as a conversation in which the participants don't even agree on the definition of basic terminology is bound to be unfruitful. — Arkady
Well I probably don't agree with your definition of "abstract object" then. I just constructed a building. I used the Pythagorean Theorem (abstract object) to lay out a square foundation. Are you claiming that the Pythagorean Theorem is not a cause of the building being square? Or are you saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is not an abstract object? — Metaphysician Undercover
The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) -- so says Wikipedia.
I'm not an expert on the historical aspect of the Trinity, but I would imagine its development was motivated at least in part to reconcile the apparent tension for Christians in believing that God is unitary and yet also had son who was himself God.An all powerful, all knowing, all present God just doesn't need this divine ménage à trois. Whatever happened, the omni-etc. unitary being (God, period) is perfectly capable of doing it. — Bitter Crank
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.