Of course if A=B and A is a number, it follows that B is a number. — Banno

Then you've done what I said:

Now you could build that condition into your definition of "=" if you like... — Leontiskos

And also as I said:

...but it amounts to the same failure; the same invalidity within your argument. — Leontiskos

Your proposition "Jesus = God(head)" is false, given that there is not equality between things of different genera. This is precisely what I said above.

And then you flee back to the diagram. It's not about the diagram, it's about the nature of "is". — Banno

Which, again, comes precisely from the diagram. Your continual insistence makes no sense, "It's not about the diagram, it's about that part of the diagram that says 'is'!" That part of the diagram is obviously a part of the diagram.

...and the issue is, how are we to make sense of this? — Banno

By reading the smallest bit of theology to inform yourself before jumping to attack that which you do not understand?

The Trinitarian term "God(head)" is not a hypostasis; it is an ousia. Christians do not believe that Jesus = God(head).

The transitivity of identity doesn't require relata to "belong to the same genus" - it's a purely logical principle. If A=B and B=C, then A=C, regardless of what kind of things A, B, and C are. — Banno

No, that's incorrect. The presupposition when using the transitive property of identity is that each of the relata are the same kind of thing (i.e. belong to the same genus). So if A, B, and C are all numbers, then we can apply the transitive property of identity to them. But if A is a number, B is an animal, and C is a solar system, then we cannot.

Now you could build that condition into your definition of "=" if you like, but it amounts to the same failure; the same invalidity within your argument.

Again, the deeper problem is that you are relying on a heuristic diagram that doesn't try to be theologically precise. One way to remedy such confusions is to talk about Godhead instead of "God," to remind ourselves that what is at stake is an ousia.

The same sort of error is present in claims like this one:

When folk say that Jesus is god, they mean that when they say that Jesus died on the cross, it was god who died on the cross. — Banno

When you say, "...it was god," you mean, "it was the god-person," and this is precisely what is not meant when a Christian says that Jesus is God. In fact the theologically precise Christian says that Jesus is the Son of God.

transitivity — Banno

Again:

Sure, but did you catch the other half, where viewing "God" and "hypostasis" as belonging to the same univocal genus is also erroneous? — Leontiskos

The transitive property of identity requires that the three relata belong to the same genus. Yet a hypostasis and an ousia obviously do not belong to the same genus. Your argument is invalid.

So you characterized my position on the Trinity as one I “accept it as a mystery, as an article of faith rather than of reason.” That is not what is going on in my mind, or not how I would say it. It is close, but not precise.

I do believe there is one God who is three persons; I also believe there is reasoning that explains this. I also see that I had to accept all of this through faith, because it is mysterious. But again, my reason allows me deeper and better understanding of this (how the Trinity relates to the substance of love, and knowing, but I digress), so I would not simply end my
position on the issue as “it’s a mystery; believe it or don’t if you want.” There is much more to say besides “mystery” about the Trinity and it takes reason and logic to say things. — Fire Ologist

Good stuff. :up:

For example, for Aquinas the doctrine of the Trinity is an article of faith, and what this means is that faith is a necessary condition for belief in the Trinity. For Aquinas, one does not simply figure out the fact of the Trinity all by their lonesome. But this does not mean that the doctrine is divorced from reason.

If an atheist were really interested in the theology of revelation, they would want to start thinking about how an intellectually superior being would reveal things to an intellectually inferior being, namely things which exceed the rational comprehension of the intellectually inferior being. (Note that I am focusing on the "intellectual" for the sake of simplicity.)

All the theist can say is “yes, but then why did you ask me about God and the Trinity - these objects were revealed to me — Fire Ologist

:up:

And as far as “only analogy” can capture our understanding of the Trinity, yes, there are senses to “analogy” where this is true. So my point is, there are other senses to analogy where we must use reason and logic to identify how an analogy points out similarities and how it points out differences; — Fire Ologist

Right.

Agreed. There is a lot of misperception — Fire Ologist

Yeah, and I think a lot of it has to do with a kind of anthropocentrism, where one sees themselves and their own age as the center of the universe. On that conception everything is measured against our current form, and so much the worse for anything that doesn't "measure up." Thus there is no possibility of being measured by something greater than us. No possibility, for example, of being dwarfed by greater intelligences.

Edit: The other general problem is that Trinitarian theology requires the most careful linguistic distinctions, and the objectors are basically using careless or ambiguous words at every turn. For example, pretending that the symbol (or rather function) "=" has some precise meaning, or that "is" is an uncomplicated copula, or that 'incomprehensible' and 'inconceivable' mean the same thing. I could go on. It is but one instance of the sort of lazy critique where one expects their interlocutor to do all of the work, and where one purports to be knowledgeable, ignorant, and critical of some particular thesis, all at the same time.

I'm not sure it's so ... "non-mysterious". ;) — jorndoe

I hope I haven't said that the Trinity is non-mysterious?

The Jews don't put much divine stock in Jesus; he wasn't the Messiah according to them. — jorndoe

Well the first Christians were all Jews. Beyond that, there are different lines of Jewish expectation and prophecy, and the ones which converge on a figure like Jesus actually exclude the unanimity that modern folk seem to expect.

The Christian narrative is not as simple as some would have it:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. — Matthew 10 (RSV)

- Yeah, I think you're making a really salient point. :up:

I guess no one wanted to take up Hanover's comment? — jorndoe

I don't know where his either/or is coming from.

The perennialists sometimes bring up the parable of the blind men and an elephant.
Might be better suited for pluralism. — jorndoe

Right, and a pluralism thesis is different from an incomprehensibility thesis, although that parable does leverage incomprehensibility. The key difference for a Christian claim or any revelatory claim is that some truth is entrusted to man by God.

So according to the Hindu/Buddhist elephant-parable contradictions are considered acceptable because it is assumed that they resolve at a deeper level. For Christianity there is no "deeper level" which supersedes divine revelation. Thus the phenomenon of contradiction is being approached differently by the two traditions, albeit with the significant caveat that the epistemic reliability of the claims in question is markedly different. Nevertheless, there are similarities insofar as Christians believe that various tensions and confusions will be resolved in the end. Still, the Christian would be careful to distinguish a tension from a contradiction.

Wouldn't it be more a cause for wonderment if it created referential transparency?

Then the Superman of Lois' beliefs could be relied on to share all his properties with the actual fictional one?

Granted that would spoil story-telling, and perhaps also Davidson's proposed intentionality test. — bongo fury

Wouldn't it also mean that the believer is omniscient, lacking no knowledge about identities?

As I mentioned, it's been said that God is like a coffee cup. The handle is an analogy. The mind is the index finger. In other words, the mind can only grasp God in a limited way. — frank

Yes, that's something of the idea. :up:

Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light. — Aquinas, ST I.12.1

This is often captured by the idea that what is infinite (God) cannot be comprehended or encompassed by what is finite (man).

- Interesting points. :up:

So I disagree with the New Advent quote above where it says “can be expressed…only in terms of analogy.” — Fire Ologist

One can understand what that encyclopedia means by 'analogy' by consulting its entry on analogy. It's different from how we now use that term colloquially.

It is precisely the fact that reason is a separate function than belief that one can believe before seeing reason — Fire Ologist

I think a good starting point for this is the quote I gave from Peter L. P. Simpson.

So I agree with you and Banno that the Trinity strains credulity. — Fire Ologist

I think the whole notion that "the Trinity strains credulity" is premised upon the contentious idea that the Trinity is discovered through natural reason. Something which does not pretend to be demonstrated by natural reason cannot really strain the credulity of natural reason.

For example, suppose a highly intelligent man told you, "I have developed technology capable of catching the rocket boosters from a rocket launch." Does that "strain credulity"? It depends on how intelligent you believe him to be. Whether the claim is credible depends on the man. To say that what he says "strains credulity" is to either hold that he is not sufficiently intelligent, powerful, or honest, or else to hold that what he testifies to is logically impossible.

The problem here is that folks like Banno simply haven't asked the question of where the Trinitarian doctrines come from:

One question here is surely whether the Trinity is to be understood as a starting point, as a hinge proposition, not to be doubted; or as a deduction from first principles as Bob Ross would have it; or... — Banno

In fact Christians believe in the Trinity on the testimony of God. It isn't a "hinge proposition"* or any such thing. The implicit premise for Banno which says that God cannot testify is an atheistic petitio principii.

What I said towards the end of <this thread> is very much on point here. There are only two logically valid attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity: 1) The Trinity is self-contradictory; or 2) The Christian's reasons for believing in the Trinity are insufficient. Both attacks require actual work.


* Incidentally, a "hinge proposition" in the way it is usually understood is a philosophically incoherent idea, whether or not Wittgenstein even held to it.

Sure. All cards on the table, the inspiration for the OP was the fact that there were two open threads attacking the OT, one on the basis that some of the folktales in it don't seem possible, and one complaining that the OT deity seems vengeful. I was like, did you guys think the NT makes sense? Because it doesn't. — frank

Do you find it odd that you didn't bother to reference the New Testament? One cannot make arguments against the New Testament without consulting the New Testament, just as one cannot make arguments against Catholicism without consulting Catholicism. So the consultation of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly a step in the right direction, even if it is only occurring on page 19.

If you will, read the following from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, and see if you can understand how a person would get the impression that the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be beyond human understanding.

...

In other words, they're drawing a distinction between incomprehensibility and inconceivableness. At first glance, it doesn't seem that such a distinction is supportable. Don't these two words mean the same thing? When the topic is mystery, the answer is no. A mystery is incomprehensible, but not inconceivable. They're denying that the Trinity is a contradiction, but they admit that it's superior to reason. Another way to say that is that it is beyond reason. — frank

I think Count already addressed this:

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). — Count Timothy von Icarus

What's curious here is that many Analytics would agree with this claim:

all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; — Mystery | Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

Another way to say this is to say that nothing that we know is fully comprehended, or fully comprehensible.

So if you think that "incomprehensible" and "inconceivable" have the same meaning—itself a dubious linguistic claim—then what would follow from this quote is that nothing is conceivable. This too looks absurd.

This argumentation is fallacious, since it confounds incomprehensibility with inconceivableness, superiority to reason with contradiction. — Mystery | Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)

Are you claiming that there is nothing which is superior to reason that is not at the same time contradictory? That everything which is superior to reason is contradictory?

Analysis becomes a form of worship. — Hanover

I disagree with that, but I don't know how far afield this would take us. Analysis can be worship, but it need not be. I suppose much of it depends on what you mean by "asserting the Talmud a hinge belief."

the analytic tradition need not be atheistic — Hanover

Agreed.

I just point out that both sides to our hearty debate are being myopic if they think analytic thought entails atheism. What entails atheism or theism is worldview, which relates to form of life. — Hanover

So when I said "Atheistic Analytic":

Between the Atheistic Analytic and the Catholic... — Leontiskos

...I meant an Analytic philosopher who is an atheist, thus implying that not all Analytic philosophers are atheists. Perhaps that was confusing.

I don't think it's a stipulation in that context. We know what Lois believes because we know the story. It's from the narrator's point of view. That isn't available in real life. — frank

I don't see why it can't be recast as a question of what follows from belief. For example, you could avoid this by rewriting b. "Suppose Lois believes that Superman can fly." It seems that the "God's eye view" comes not primarily in premise (b) but rather in premise (a), yet that too can be recast as a supposition, thus achieving the central Analytic shift from inference to consequence.

It has been fruitful. I've picked up quite a bit about the ancient Greeks from Christians on TPF. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Yes. Even recently you've shown me a lot of moves I suspected Jewish theology would make but had never concretely witnessed before.

It almost became a discussion between two sides of an issue a couple times, but earnestness is hard to fake on TFP. — Fire Ologist

Right. I think there are cases where religious discussion can be quite fruitful:

• Interreligious dialogue between contrasting religious approaches
• Responding to critiques from those who are knowledgeable about religion or who are willing to put in the effort to learn (including atheists)
• The application of a religious tenet or concept to another field
• Genuine inquiry

Obviously this doesn't happen too often on TPF, but it is possible.

And this leads to a new question: why the gold is not growing as fast as bitcoins? — Linkey

Because it was already a stable holding long before cryptocurrencies arrived. Therefore the gross investment in gold is presumably much higher than cryptocurrencies, even though a few cryptocurrencies are increasing at a faster pace. When you have millions of cryptocurrencies, each of which starts from scratch, some of them will begin to grow at a fast pace. But the growth factor is a very limited metric.

Beyond that, interest in cryptocurrency is currently a form of speculation, which is why one sees more growth and general variance in that area.

Coming back to this but trying to shorten the length a bit...

In general I see no reason to claim that causality is physical. — Leontiskos

I can't see that it could obtain if not. This is a really weird statement, for me. It's almost like saying "I can't see a reason, in general, to assume that heat causes hotness". I mean, causation happens in the physical world. We don't have other examples (ignoring some "hard problem" considerations that would beg the question on either side). — AmadeusD

I think this is the central point. If there are no good arguments that causality is physical, then we have no reason to claim that causality is physical. Of course if we ignore the ubiquitous phenomenon of mental causation, then we are closer to a physicalism that would favor physical causality. But at the moment I think we're asking whether causality that does not involve mentality is physical.

The way that causality abstracts from objects—physical or otherwise—and is situated in between objects (in their relationality) is another example of the way that two differentiated genera provide us with the power to reason. — Leontiskos

It doesn't obtain "between" the objects, in physical space. It only obtains "between" the objects in thought (like the "relationship" between two corporate entities. In reality, it is the "relationship of them - how the two relate). — AmadeusD

Yes, but even then the relationship between two objects is something that is between the two objects. It is neither one object nor the other nor some third object. Thus to say that causality occurs between physical objects does not seem to prove that causality is physical, unless by "is physical" we only mean, "occurring between two physical objects."

There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to consider a non-physical basis for energy transfer yet. — AmadeusD

Well "basis" is a strange word here. If there is no reason to claim that causality is physical, and there is no reason to consider a non-physical basis for energy transfer, then why not simply abstain from affirming either of those things?

In light of the above, i think I need an elucidation here. It seems this has been answered adequately above: Yes, they are one-and-the-same but in concert, not considered individually. The energy of one ball is part and parcel of itself, and not something "other". The same true for ball 2. They then interact, physically, and pass physical matter between themselves causing "work" to have obtained. — AmadeusD

Note though that if you think energy transfer is the transfer of physical matter, then it seems that you do think energy is a physical object, even though you said, "Energy is not a physical object, and no one claims it is." This is a large part of the difficulty. The concept of "capacity to do work" (energy) is not physical matter, and yet you think the transfer of energy is the transfer of physical matter.

and therefore a mathematical distance-measurement is not physical — Leontiskos

This is wrong as I see. The division is not physical. The division is artificial and, as you say, abstract. The measurement is entirely physical and rests on the actual physical limitations of point A in relation to point B and the physical space between them, along with our measurement methods which are also physical. — AmadeusD

I have a hard time with your claim that measurement is physical. I would say that a measurement of distance and the two endpoints belong to a different genus. The spatial orientation of a physical object, especially relative to something else, is not a property of itself. It is a Cambridge property. This is why points can be dimensionless even while line-lengths are not. In Euclidean geometry a line is always qualitative more than a set of points.

IN fairness, this was rough-and-ready and I'm technically misspeaking, even on my own understanding. Different forms of transfer require different descriptions, but something like this seems to work for your example. A version below:

"At the interface where the two objects meet, the faster-moving, higher-energy particles from the hot object collide with the slower-moving, lower-energy particles of the colder object."

At collision, "energy" which is read essentially as head or speed in this context, passes between the two objects, more-or-less replacing the hotter, faster particles in the moving object with colder, slower particles from the stationary object (again, not quite right - but the net effect is this).

An easier example is something like boiling (convection more broadly): less energetic particles are heated, move faster and spread about over a larger area, which causes them to move (as they cannot be as close to other particles when vibrating so fast, lest destruction occur) upwards and transfer that heat as essentially movement, to the more dense, less hot particles which they encounter. There's a purely physical explanation going on there.

Energy is just an assignment of value to the ability for a system to "do work" or affect other systems and objects. It's not claimed to be a "thing". Its a physical attribute, described very different across different media. — AmadeusD

I agree that the case of boiling water fits your account better than the case of collision. The difficulty here is that if you think every cause is physical, then you will need to defend not only the boiling of water, but also the collision of objects, gravity, etc.

it is hard to see how gravity is itself supposed to be physical. — Leontiskos

I don't find it hard. But then, I include certain assumptions about "fabric" being involved in space-time. That there is a finite set of work that can be done within the Universe leads me to understand that all bodies will be affected by all other bodies. This will represent itself in a ubiquitous force exerted by everything, on everything else. I'm unsure its reducible in any way from that. — AmadeusD

But I think "fabric" is another metaphor being reified. Does the physicist see the "spacetime fabric" as physical? In what sense is it said to be physical? We can surely stretch the word "physical" far beyond what we ever generally mean by it, but I am not much interested in that approach.

I'll go with your example though [but add premise 3]: — AmadeusD

1. Billiard ball1 causes billiard ball2 to move
2. Billiard ball1 and billiard ball2 are both physical
3. There is nothing else involved in the interaction
4. Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two billiard balls is itself physical — Leontiskos

I still don't see that (4) follows. There is no sufficient reason to believe that the (causal) interaction is itself physical.

Consider: <Muhammad Ali causes George Foreman to move; Muhammad Ali and George Foreman are both human; There is nothing else involved in the interaction; Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two boxers is itself human>.

Or: <The cue-ball causes the the nine-ball to move; The cue-ball and the nine-ball are both phenolic resin; There is nothing else involved in the interaction; Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two balls is itself phenolic resin>.

This form of reasoning does not seem to be valid. A kind of metabasis eis allo genos is occurring in the conclusion, where the predicate term is of an improper genus. Causation is not human, or phenolic resin, or physical, etc. We can say that what causes the nine-ball to move is the collision with a phenolic resin object, but words like "collision," "interaction," "relation," are also not amenable to the genera in question. Collisions are not phenolic resin, or phenolic resin objects. Collisions can occur between objects made of phenolic resin; or objects made of phenolic resin can collide, but it is still improper to say that the collision is itself phenolic resin.

I would say that the majority of talk about causation is in non-physicalist terms. — Leontiskos

I agree. I think most of it is doomed to be self-contradictory, empirically untenable or down-right ridiculous (God did it, for instance). — AmadeusD

That's not what I am saying. If two physicists are studying billiards and you ask them, "Are you assuming that the collision is itself phenolic resin?," they will tell you, "No, I am not." Or, "Are you assuming that the collision is itself physical?," they will tell you, "No, I am not." Physics by its very nature has always prescinded from the idea that collisions are themselves phenolic resin or that collisions are themselves physical. I gave the reason why earlier, "explanation and reasoning requires differentiated genera." If everything is reduced to the physical (or to any one homogenous thing), then explanation will be impossible, including causality-explanations.

But I think what you say is right when taken with respect to our cultural "religion" of materialism or physicalism. If we just assume that everything is physical, including causality, then we lead ourselves into absurdities. In this case it is the absurdity which makes interactions the same kind of thing as that which interacts. ("The Physical" is the new Ur-explanation)

Exactly: "that a car could make." It is potential. "Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work" (Britannica). — Leontiskos

Physically deducible. — AmadeusD

"Physically deducible" is a strange and ambiguous phrase. Better to say, "deducible from physical interactions." And there simply is no valid deduction to the conclusion that the interaction is itself physical.

The point here is that none of us care to argue the esoteric points of Catholicism to determine whether the trinity is sustainable within the dictates of that logical system and to otherwise point out the tensions from within that system. — Hanover

This is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If the two interlocutors do not share an overarching norm then one's critique of the other will not be intelligible. The only real norm that Analytic Philosophy is consciously capable of is the norm of consistency (which is apparently the avoidance of being "illogical").

That's fine as far as it goes. Catholics also hold to the norm of consistency. But to show that the doctrine of the Trinity contains within itself a contradiction is a tall task, and I don't find a serious attempt at it within this thread. @frank's most recent attempt was to skip the "discovery" phrase and just declare that Catholics themselves hold that the Trinity is illogical. The problem with such an approach is basic: Catholics, like everyone else, simply do not hold that their own beliefs are illogical. Frank's claim about what Catholics hold is just false, and obviously so. Note too that in the extremely dense and complex history of Trinitarian controversy, the charge of internal self-contradiction is incredibly rare. The Analytic's desire to avoid metaphysics makes his whole approach extremely impotent in the face of real life philosophies, such as religions.

It is a tug of war between the substantiality of the norm and the communicability of the norm. Between the Atheistic Analytic and the Catholic the communicable/shared norms tend to be insubstantial, and the substantial norms tend to be incommunicable/unshared. This is why the whole approach of the OP is misguided. The Analytic, with his tiny set of norms, must ultimately admit that pretty much everything passes muster, at least on Analytic grounds. This is not so with a Muslim, for example, who has a metaphysical conception of God that is at odds with the Trinity.

Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. — Fire Ologist

Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is. — Banno

We have yet another equivocation from Banno. What he did was give a strange self-referential account of why it looks like his activity in the thread is stupid but it's really quite smart. He is narrating his own activity and trying to construe it as "performance art" and "Wittgenstenian showing." According to his self-narration, he was trying to sink the thread into a bog of pointlessness! This post of Banno's was a very poor and awkward attempt at what the Germans refer to as "Deutungshoheit."

So whether or not philosophy is talking about talking, this self-narration in order to try to salvage one's past utterances is obviously not philosophy. It's just a vain attempt to save face.

“if x and y are the same object, then x and y have the same properties" — frank

In each case you are dealing with mental or intentional objects, and therein lies the confusion. Things like belief or the number of letters that any given language uses for a word have to do with our thinking, not with objects in themselves. In an Aristotelian sense an accidental property is being confused with an essential property. For example, it is only an accidental property of Istanbul that its English name has eight letters. Leibniz' law was never meant to track accidental properties deriving from mental objects.

Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?

That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.

Leon is helpful in these threads becasue he is so predictable. When someone disagrees with him he will variously denigrate them personally, misrepresent what they have said and claim to have already provided the answer. It's a pattern seen across many threads and against many different posters, and is the reason that he is ignored by so many of the more competent folk hereabouts.

He also borrows a strategy from Tim, to bury the discussion in appeals to specialised theological metaphysics, to insist that those who do not engage in the same texts as he does cannot understand his profundity. At heart this is an appeal to authority, together with a refusal to engage charitably.

Tim of course has a better background in all this than any of us, and so never descends to plebeian stance of actually presenting an argument. Hand waving and eloquence is sufficient for him to maintain his circumstance.

Fire Ologist presumes that the posts here are trying to learn about Christianity. That's not something I'm much interested in, given it's ubiquity. Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.

So is this just performance art? Public onanism?

What if Banno's point is more Wittgensteinian, or Davidsonian - that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? Then the arch of his assault here is in showing that all Leon and Tim and the others are doing is also a distasteful display of inappropriate behaviour? That in the face of the ineffable and the infinite, any finite discourse must fail?

But he's not cleaver enough to be doing that, now, is he.

Perhaps it's not a good idea to post these musings. But I'll do it anyway. These interminable threads make my point far more eloquently than I ever could. — Banno

No, this sort of ad hominem psychologizing and self-portrayal that you often resort to reveals how desperate you are to try to spin a narrative that has gotten away from you, in yet another thread where you have embarrassed yourself. In this case the embarrassment stems from your refusal to move beyond a diagram.

(I quoted your whole post so there's no need to try to edit it away. It's a gem.)

Again, you are confusing identi[t]y relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G". — Bob Ross

:100: :up:

These uses of "=" have caused confusion, not clarity.

- :up:

I agree with that. I will say Banno was trying to be precise, pointing out specific contradictions. — Fire Ologist

The other thing we have to reckon with is the question of how much any given explanation or account is meant to bear. The diagram that Banno has decided to scrutinize is not meant to bear scrutiny from the hardened anti-religious. It is at best a heuristic tool to help believers remember some basic ideas relating to the Trinity, or to sketch the silhouette of the doctrine. It just doesn't make sense to take refined philosophical weapons and go to war against a simple heuristic diagram.

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. — Fire Ologist

I think what has happened at points throughout the thread is an accumulation of several minor equivocations. For example, someone who cannot even read music might look at a musical score and move from predication to predication:

• Not beautiful
• Not satisfying
• Not logical

What has happened in this thread is that the shift continues:

• ...Ugly
• ...Dissatisfying
• ...Illogical

One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason," but this does not suffice to infer, "illogical." The root problem is that a claim like "not logical" is vague and ambiguous, as it has a very large semantic range and could even be construed in positive or negative ways. It lacks precision and is therefore an unwieldy predication, especially when it is to be leveraged as an accusation.

---

To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain: — Count Timothy von Icarus

He is very eloquent. :up:

:lol:

This is quite the thread.

: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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Called. — Banno

Called? You say that we cannot discuss the Creed without bringing in Thomism. This is obviously false, but ignoring that for a moment, you haven't the slightest interest in discussing Thomism. I provided you with three central texts from Thomas, and pointed you back to them twice, and yet you refuse to touch them. You aren't interested in the Creed, or Thomism, or any specifically Christian theology. The only thing you are interested in is a simplistic diagram and your hostile translation of its meaning. You know that if you go beyond that diagram then your strawmen will fall to pieces.

The creed doesn't help make sense of you and Tim, of itself. We need the Thomism as well. — Banno

On that thesis it would be very difficult to understand how Christians got along without Thomism for 900 years. Or how non-Thomists got along even after Thomas. Like before, you are trading in factual inaccuracies.

As Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, it's heresy to suggest that God is a category that the three hypostases belong to, as dogs, cats, and mice belong to the category of mammals, rather, each hypostasis is fully God. — frank

Sure, but did you catch the other half, where viewing "God" and "hypostasis" as belonging to the same univocal genus is also erroneous? Is it really so odd to think that in the Source of all created being there is a reality that transcends the distinctions commonly found within created being? Isn't that pretty much what everyone would expect to find? That's how analogy cashes out when applied to God. It means that there is not a one-to-one mapping between what is found in creation and what is found in God. It means that there is more in God than there is in creation. None of this is incoherent.

Yeah, the Creed doesn't help much unless you also take on board the whole Thomistic metaphysics of essence and personhood and so on. — Banno

This would be a great take if not for the fact that the Nicene Creed predates Thomism by some 900 years. When religious topics are broached on TPF the level of both historical and general ignorance is breathtaking.

Isn't this the same thing that always happens with Banno? He takes his parochial, historically ignorant version of Analytic Philosophy... — Leontiskos