I could see how for some the existence of such a human would really grate on their nerves. It sort of erodes our agency in a way doesn’t it?” — Benj96

Yes, but this might be the case only in the beginning. Subsequent generations would get used to it and take it as a fact of life.

And would that person still qualify as human? What if people start seeing them as superhuman or divine and decide to worship instead of resenting them?

one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational. — Fooloso4

If it can be shown that the "irrational" is rational then it ceases to be irrational. But then you've spoken to Jesus or he to you and you know better than anyone else, so it's OK.

It's all me - I haven't read anything whatsoever about the trinity, but I am sure someone else will have made the same point somewhere. — Bartricks

Well done, in that case. But to go back to your cuboid, spherical and pyramidal objects.

How about taking (1) a circle/sphere to represent God, (2) a square/cube inside the circle/sphere to represent the Holy Spirit, and (3) a triangle/pyramid inside the square/cube to represent Jesus?

Or Circle, Octagon, Square?

What I'm saying is could we use geometric figures in such as way as to amalgamate your analogy with those of @TheMadFool and @Amalac (and maybe others) into a great Unified Theory/Analogy of the Trinity?

And would it demonstrate that the statement "the Trinity is inconsistent" is false?

I begin to see the worth of having theists on the forum. They are excellent bad examples. — Banno

That's what I thought, too. As long as they are excellent, who cares about "bad"?

That is because the longer the sides of the triangle become, the closer it gets — Amalac

Yes, maybe a triangle would be an apt illustration for the Trinity. Maybe the Trinity concept isn't quite so "inconsistent" after all.

The numbers are simply meant as analogies to illustrate what I feel is the meaning of The Holy Trinity — TheMadFool

Yes, and it makes sense to me. But would you not have to put it to theologians in mathematical terms? On the other hand, if there is no other solution, they may have to accept it. Something is better than nothing IMO.

The trinity is Neoplatonic. — frank

At origin, yes. But it has become Christian in the meantime. Although, as I said, Christians not unnaturally tend to pray either to God the Father or God the Son, very seldom to the Trinity. To my understanding the Trinity is more for Christian philosophers than ordinary believers. It doesn't look like there are many of them on this forum anyway.

Good try. However, whether Christians would be entirely happy with reducing the Holy Trinity to numbers, seems uncertain. But you can never know.

I would take issue with the claim that 'the Holy Spirit and God are one' is consistent with understanding the Holy Spirit to refer to God's power or agency. For that's a category error. A person's power is not one and the same as the person, but is rather a property of that person. I have powers, but I am not my powers. — Bartricks

I agree that it sounds like a category error. I just thought that God is, by definition, sui generis. He isn't an ordinary "object" or comparable to anything else. Other than that, the Trinity as the same object with different properties sounds very interesting to me. We'll have to see how theologians would see it. By the way, did you just think of that trick now, or did you read about it somewhere in connection with the Trinity?

The spiritual quest starts with seeing beyond the self, that is something that both East and West agree on. There are vast domains of understanding well outside the scope of our hedonistic technological culture. But we also can’t cling to the past. — Wayfarer

I also find that, by training and sometimes by intellectual inclination, academics have a tendency to take an "impartial" approach to their subject that forces them to be so detached as to be virtually incapable of studying a tradition from within, which rather defeats the object.

I agree that we can't cling to the past, though we can and should draw lessons from it. We must cling to what is eternal and eternity is found in the present moment. The present is the gate to eternity. Those who look for it in the future will never find it. The agreement between seemingly disparate traditions seems to suggest that there is more than a kernel of truth in their teachings. Moreover, they all ultimately point in the same direction. It's just that the inner message often gets lost in external trappings and other secondary issues. Mainstream culture conditions us to look at externals and ignore the inner core of things and the true meaning of existence.

Let's put this down as misattribution. — Banno

You mean your misattribution.

Here's the thing: There should be no thread on the Trinity in a philosophical forum. — Banno

Well, there is a thread on the Trinity. Starting one and then attacking people for posting comments seems a bit irrational to me. But I could be wrong. Maybe that's how things are done on atheist forums.

Do you even know how to read?

Quoting out of context as a rhetorical device. Nice example. Thanks. — Banno

You only posted one or two statements on the Trinity. Do you expect me to make some up for you?

For at least the simple reason that on that basis you are no Christian at all — tim wood

That's where you're totally wrong. I never said I was a Christian. I was only defending the Christians' right to interpret their own beliefs without being attacked by atheists who think Jesus has spoken to them.

So how can you discuss the Trinity on a thread about the Trinity without quoting Christian beliefs?

Plus, your own statement was this:

The trinity is inconsistent. — Banno

That doesn't sound like a logical argument to me at all.

you tried to move form Christianity to Islam — Banno

Not at all. I only asked out of curiosity, to see if you hate other believers as well or just Christians.

You attempt to shift topic is noted - more examples of your refusal to address the issue — Banno

I think it's the other way around. I was right on the topic which is the Trinity when the Foolo started to claim that Jesus told him that he doesn't believe in the Trinity.

But, demonstrably, there are atheists here, presenting arguments, in direct contradiction of your assertion. — Banno

I don't think so. Statements like "Jesus would have been appalled" aren't arguments. just unfounded speculation IMO.

And are Muslims "a blight" as well, or just Christians?

The Christians are a blight on the forum, yes, because they only have one topic; but more, because they do not accept rational discussion. — Banno

Fine. Then it would be more honest to ban Christians from the forum.

Plus, belief is belief. I don't see atheists subjecting their beliefs to "rational discussion" at all. On the contrary.

It’s essentially surrendering our intellectual autonomy to an entity that knows all. — Benj96

Only if you choose to. You can always find answers through your own efforts. Nobody is preventing you.

You follow the grand Christian tradition of equating critique with persecutions. — Banno

Not really. I just don't think statements like "Jesus would have been appalled" are logical arguments in a debate when there is no evidence to back it up.

God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it. — Gregory

Yes. Unfortunately, you can't expect atheists and anti-Christians to understand that. Yet they are allowed to dominate the debate and even encouraged for some strange reason.

No one is preventing you from interpreting it any way you want. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what you're trying to do. Every time anyone says anything about Christianity you say stuff like this:

"

Jesus would have been appalled to find that he was deified. — Fooloso4

When it is pointed out to you that there is no way you can possibly know that, you become agitated and abusive. Atheist "experts" on Christianity is the last thing Christians need.

Whereas most governments, or special god blessed governments at least, would be trusted by any rational person. — unenlightened

That wasn't what I said.

....while the much more likely notion that it crossed from an animal is ignored. — Banno

On what basis can they determine that zoonotic transmission is "much more likely"?

A study led by scientists Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao of South China University of Technology concluded that “the killer coronavirus probably originated in a laboratory in Wuhan”. They also pointed out that at that time of the year wild bats would be hibernating and unlikely to be spreading diseases to anyone, especially in an urban centre of 9 million people like Wuhan.

And why did the regime arrest 5,000 people including doctors, scientists, lawyers and journalists? This was a massive cover-up operation that even the Chinese think was highly suspicious and suggests some dodgy goings-on. I think the Chinese know their own government better than anyone else.

I think the reason is that one of the leading medical journals, The Lancet, published a condemnation of all "conspiracy theories" of possibility of a lab leak. Of course, the those totally rejecting one hypothesis at that moment when we don't know much, likely have something to hide. — ssu

I don't think any rational person would ever trust the Chinese government, to be honest. But I think what tends to happen is that many research universities, think tanks, and medical institutions are funded by China. So, obviously, you'll get scientific organizations siding with China. That's how science becomes an extension of politics and foreign interference.

Perhaps my reading skills have declined in my elder years, but I believe the original topic had something to do with this Einstein fellow? — EricH

That was once upon a time, in the distant past. The world progresses very fast these days. And philosophy forums even more so ....

Since you see no contradiction it follows that it is not possible for you formulate it in such a way. — Fooloso4

It doesn't follow at all. No logical or even grammatical connection between one thing and the other.

This is a public forum. If you don't want anyone to challenge your claims then you are in the wrong place. — Fooloso4

My claim is that Christians have the right to interpret their own religion in whatever way they wish. You may try to challenge that but it will only expose you as a militant and somewhat unhinged anti-Christian, nothing else.

Oh, I've learned quite a lot from you, don't you worry. Unfortunately, nothing good.

Your "logical arguments" go something like this: ... "woo" ... "shit" ..."Wittgenstein" ... "bs" ... "woo" ... "Spinoza" ..."woo" ... "STFD" ... "woo" ... "shit" ... etc., etc.

Exceedingly "sound reasoning", I must say. Almost too sound to be true ... But hey, this is a "forum dedicated to philosophical discussion", so, yeah, koool.

Don't feel you need to logically demonstrate your positions on a site dedicated to philosophical discussion? — 180 Proof

The site may well be dedicated to philosophical discussion. Unfortunately, your comments aren't.

Keep your bs to yourself and STFD. — 180 Proof

Why don't you lead by example and show us how it's done?

If you both intend on using rational argumentation there should be nothing for either to fear from having a moderator hold each of you accountable to the other. That should address the problems each of you have expressed about the others discourse. — DingoJones

Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me. And someone should delete ad hominems and other uncalled-for insults from both sides.

Maybe I'm / we're "angry" at your sanctimonous and delusional woo-of the gaps. — 180 Proof

Cool. So you agree that you're angry. We already knew that, but it's good to see some honesty and integrity, surprising though it might be.

So exorcize my / our "anger" and demonstrate soundly that our / my atheism is false (or incoherent) — 180 Proof

Personally, I'm not an exorcist, so I can't help you there. Quite possibly, it's too late anyway.

I don't need to "demonstrate" anything because atheism is your problem, not mine.

The point I was making was that some atheists, like yourself (not all atheists) are angry and hold some irrational grudge against religion and against people who believe, as suggested by Einstein:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. “ — Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 97
Atheism (einsteinandreligion.com)

BTW, how many are "you"? One, or many, or you don't know?

They make all kinds of excuses when you try to make them use logic to justify their position — 3017amen

I doubt there is much chance of them using "logic". Some of them look and sound like pressure kettles on the boil ...

Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride). — praxis

If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. But it looks like some people here choose to divert the discussion away from the topic and use ad hominems in the process.

There is no contradiction to me. So, I don't need to formulate it for myself. But @Bartricks may be able to do so as he himself suggested. My comment was addressed to him. Nothing to do with you. You seem to have some serious mental issues there.

Why would you possibly "resent" that? There are always people who know more than you, aren't there? Do you propose to spend the rest of your life resenting that fact?

Plus, you're free not to ask if you prefer to find your own answers. I don't see where the problem is.

In a few quick posts you have gone from claiming you can formulate the Trinity in a way that is acceptable to philosophy in general to throwing a tantrum. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but I think you are insane. That's why you call yourself a "Fool", isn't it? I never said I can formulate the Trinity, I don't need to. I was suggesting it to @Bartricks because he seems to be good at coming up with some neat formulations. But, obviously, you can't even think let alone read. And you imagine you can interpret the Christians' scriptures for them. Sounds about right, doesn't it?

I was fairly lucky in the start of my philosophical studies because I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster, and it covered many different areas of philosophy, — Jack Cummins

Yes, we tend to speak of being “lucky”. But is it really just “luck”, or is there more to it? I think in my case it was definitely more than just luck. Philosophy, when properly understood, can be a true friend and an invaluable guide. And it connects you, at least in spirit, with a myriad of like-minded souls who have walked the same path for millennia …

When I was moving last year one of my flatmates suggested I should throw my books in the bin. But, I am glad that I moved a significant portion of them because that was just before I found this site. — Jack Cummins

I know the feeling. It can be tempting to throw books away but you can never know when you might need them again.

I think it we live in a society which values cars, houses and is extremely materialistic. But, I do believe that there are many people who do not really hold on to materialistic values, but often they are probably isolated. I believe that we live in a very fragmented culture. — Jack Cummins

That’s right. Society does seem to be turning more materialistic. But I think there is something in most or some of us that makes us strive to discover the spiritual side of life. Maybe this is part of a wider process intended to counteract cultural and spiritual fragmentation. This is also why I tend to be in two minds about multiculturalism. In a way it unifies cultures but in another it can also be a source of division.

So again, please specify. A tirade of insults? Ad hominems? Threats? Racist remarks? — tim wood

Sure, read your own statements:

Geez! You really are that stupid! — tim wood

I’m not scared of you — praxis

All is simply ignorant and fallacious error, which is part of why I have asked you what your native language is — tim wood

So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism?