we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why.

I have the impression that you, Olo, might be willing to accept it as a mystery, as an article of faith rather than of reason. If that is so, then we perhaps have nothing left to argue here. — Banno

I think there is an explanation of the many instances of “is” in the Triune God. I can provide some of them. Count and Leon have provided some.

But I don’t think I, or Bob Ross, or Leon, or anyone, would have thought of God as one God in the name (not names) of the Father, Son and Spirit who are three distinct persons - this is divine revelation, inspired words whose meaning on a surface level is mysterious. I don’t see them as contradictory, but if someone didn’t believe in any such thing as any God or revealed word, then I can see why they would only see contradiction.

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.

A shame you agree with Leon's misrepresentations of my position. — Banno

There are a lot of caricatures of what the faith is - bad starting points for the analysis and the questions.

You seem to think that I think that language cannot be about the world. — Banno

It’s not that it cannot be about the world, it’s that what it says about the world is illusion or is self-referential as part of a game constructed on top of the world, but not really about the world.

language games - moving blocks and counting apples - are inherently embedded in our interactions with the each other and with the things we find around us. — Banno

Yes, but, as soon as one talks about the block as if it could exist before one said “block”, the discussion becomes not about the block, but about how language doesn’t talk about such things. There are no blocks, until there are “blocks”.

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

Agreed. There is a lot of misperception:
- the OP said God became man and died on a a cross to save us…from his own wrath. The “from his own wrath” misunderstands what we are being saved from so set up misunderstanding of why dying on a cross might make sense.

There are others…

some truth is entrusted to man by God. — Leontiskos

Right.

Personally, I dont think the writers of the Bible figured this [the mysteries of the Trinity, sacrifice of the Son who is God, the word made flesh, the Eucharist, etc] out - they were inspired to write what makes no sense (at first) to say because it is what makes sense to God, and is for us, not from us — Fire Ologist

Analytics would agree with this claim:

all that we know is … not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; — Leontiskos

They should. Sounds like part of the method that an analytic would use to guard against essentialism, for instance.

We approach knowing, but never fully grasp.

May be said to fit with Wittgenstein as with knowledge of mystery.

I think the whole notion that "the Trinity strains credulity" is premised upon the contentious idea that the Trinity is discovered through natural reason — Leontiskos

I think we agree.

So the analytic empirical scientist could say “but what is this object called God with its eternal existence, and why would you need to find some new logic to know this God…that is all preposterous.” 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

It only strains credulity when all you believe to be credible is what comes through natural reason. I don’t. I trust is many things that strain credulity. The substance of love and value of suffering.

The point to Banno and Frank is, just because their credulity may be strained, doesn’t mean all credulity must be strained for all thinkers.

So I think we agree.

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; analytic reasoning is subsumed by or contained in analogous explanation, and therefore to say “the Trinity can be expressed…only in terms of analogy” is to include and incorporate analytic reasoning within an overall analogical approach. I don’t think we must say “can be expressed…only in terms of analogy.” I think we should simply say “is expressed… in terms of analogy.” Leave room for reason to breathe in its expression, so to speak.

Again, I think we agree.

there are true things I can know about it [the Trinity] and false things I can logically demonstrate about it, now that it has been revealed to me. — Fire Ologist

did you guys think the NT makes sense? Because it doesn't — frank

Yes, legit questions. But you didn’t ask them in a way that sounded like you thought you could possibly get an answer. You asked potential lobotomy patients to respond with a coherent thought.

Turn the other cheek says it all. I tried that and kept getting insulted. But…whatever. Always happy to be reminded of the message of the Bible, so thanks for that.

And I don’t think you are responsible for the hostility of others. Just your own belittling way of framing things…But again, whatever…. You seem earnest enough now, possibly open to respecting my response, so the rest is up to me.

The question is:

whether “the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be beyond human understanding — Fire Ologist

You quoted the following to support that the church does hold the Trinity to be beyond understanding:

Theologians distinguish two classes of supernatural mysteries: the absolute (or theological) and the relative. An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. A relative mystery is a truth whose innermost nature alone (e.g., many of the Divine attributes), or whose existence alone (e.g., the positive ceremonial precepts of the Old Law), exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature.... — New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

So the church says we don’t simply figure out through observation and logic that God is the Trinity, and we do not understand this mysterious revelation more deeply through observation and logic either. But the church doesn’t say we don’t continue to understand the Trinity more deeply and more deeply, and the church doesn’t say observation and logic are not present and necessary when we come to understand the Trinity more deeply. The church says merely that the Trinity is a truth “whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy.”

I am sympathetic to an argument that expressing my understanding of the Trinity in language will yield many analogies; and analytic statements will be hard to come by. BUT, that does not mean: 1. I am not thereby understanding the truth (because analytics fail to prove out the analogy may just point a failure of language and not the non-existence of that which language attempts to say), and 2. it does not mean there is nothing analytic whatsoever to be said (indeed you need to understand identity, transitivity, logic, analytics, in order to behold the Trinity as mystery, and in order to create accurate analogies about it.)

So I disagree with the New Advent quote above where it says “can be expressed…only in terms of analogy.” That is not dogma and I don’t have to believe it. The Trinity is a mystery whose depths will never be fully fathomed to be recaptured and restated in syllogism. But there are true things I can know about it and false things I can logically demonstrate about it, now that it has been revealed to me.

Like I can know it is false to say God the Father is the true God, and the Son and Holy Spirit are derivative. Though this seems to fix the contradictions, it is false because the Son is eternally begotten, as the Holy Spirit always proceeds from them. The three persons are immediately one God. So it is false to defeat the contradictions of the Trinity in this way because although a son logically follows after a father, in God, father and son have always immediately been the case.

Human logic needs time to go from premise to conclusion. In God the premise IS the conclusion, and the logic plays out in the instantaneous presence of eternity.

So the analytic empirical scientist could say “but what is this object called God with its eternal existence, and why would you need to find some new logic to know this God…that is all preposterous.” 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, like any other currently unexplainable, mysterious experience is revealed to us. If you want to know what I understand of my experience of this revealed thing, the above is how I can speak about it.”

So I agree with you and @Banno that the Trinity strains credulity. But that is not the same thing as saying it is devoid of all logical analysis and not able to be said in any true sense of the word “said”.

(And this is why I believe, because now we see another mystery revealed - “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” How can God be with Himself - this is all consistent with the notion of eternally begotten Son and its curious relationship with logical language. And in Genesis God creates by his word “And God said ‘let there be light’…”

Language and logic are ubiquitous indeed. But mysterious in how they can be shared with you and me, and in you or me. Language itself, analytics itself, is born out of mystery. Personally, I dont think the writers of the Bible figured this out - they were inspired to write what makes no sense to say because it is what makes sense to God and is for us, not from us. So the absurdity and its consistency with experience is like evidence of its source being from God, not merely from men who speak a language. But this is all perhaps more psychology, or epistemology, than it is the metaphysics/ontology of which you are asking.)

...I meant an Analytic philosopher who is an atheist, thus implying that not all Analytic philosophers are atheists — Leontiskos

Atheism is a very different thing to analytic method. — Banno

Right, which is why I am suspicious of this thread here on a philosophy forum instead of a theology forum. It gave license to performance art and mockery.

If we’d all be a bit more mature and forgo judgment, atheists might have no issue finding the reasoning inside of a belief in the Trinity, and theists might have no issue finding such analytic reasoning lacking. Proving one side need not be a judgment against the other because belief in God or not is a wholly different thing than what is reasonable.

It is precisely the fact that reason is a separate function than belief that one can believe before seeing reason (which we all do every day when we take risks), or require reason first before belief (which we all do every day as well when we figure out what to do next).

I am willing to start over with no hostility on an honest answer about whether “the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be beyond human understanding”.

But I’d ask for a small step back from you as well in some form of confession that your original post with it’s reference to lobotomies and belittling caricatures of Christianity might have been a factor in the hostility on the thread. No big deal to me - Maybe I don’t know your personality and you meant no offense - but dude… I go to Catholic Mass every week. I consider myself fairly reasonable and intelligent and not in any need of a lobotomy to make sense of my faith. Do you really want to speak with me or not?

No, but it might be all that can be said. — Banno

Yes.

But isn’t that statement itself, outside of, maybe better said, running parallel to, the ubiquitous analytics of language?

“All that can be said, makes use of analytics, or, is about language.” This is a metaphysical observation about being human, because we are the ones who say things. Such statements are not possible to avoid making. They are always present with the contents of language - language is not just about itself.

Must we hold that all statements about the world cannot be trusted? Sense certainty cannot be trusted analytically, yet we survive by it.

There must be more philosophy can say about this predicament.

More IS said when we say things like “it might be all that can be said” so why not embrace this and find new ways to test our theories besides the internal analytics that set out these theories?

If we subject your statement “might be all” to analytics: “might” means “maybe is, maybe is not”. So “may be all that can be said” means “may not be all that can be said”, which means there may be more that can be said. So even your statement does not foreclose all that can be said.

What more can be said about language and about what we say, than something spoken about the world and we speakers in it?

We must do better on two fronts.

Analytic philosophy as the sanctification of rules...

Not so much. — Banno

I agree. It’s not a sanctification or even a reification, because the object of analytics is not some thing to reify. It analyzes what reifying humans say. The object of analytics is speaking and analyzing, the act of signifying through language.

But it does not refute the ubiquity of analytics to say what I am saying either. The ubiquity of analytics is why one seeks to show the logic of the Trinity. Logic is ubiquitous to speakers of language. So if one such speaker wants to speak about a “Trinity” one doesn’t abandon logic (that is impossible); one is simply saying there exists something in the world, in human experience that language makes difficult to say. It can only be impossible to say if “analytics might be all that can be said.”

So if you really only thought language might be all that can be said, you would no longer be curious to speak about things like “trinities” or “what is a painting” or even what are the limits of what can be said - none of those things could truly be said the way analytics says things. But you referenced one of these impossible things to say (namely “the limits of what can be said.”). We all need to speak about the world and its truth for all. Let’s embrace that.

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. — Leontiskos

Yeah, that was weird. This post has been sarcastic, jaded, ironic from the start.

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

It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god — Banno

Not really. Unless it relates to God, the puzzles do not become so stark, so exaggerated, that they demand interest. The stakes are raised too high for you to ignore. Absolutes set every stage. It can appear delusional to ignore them all of the time.

But then, this sounds absolute:

[talking about talking] that's what Philosophy is. — Banno

Banno, like a god, making his usual intervention.

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

Ok. But is that all it is?

I am not being contrary. Complementary yes, but not contrary. (And not complimentary just yet. :joke: ).

Just because analytics accompanies everything we say, why always belittle the fact that so does the rest of the world talked about through the logic of what we endeavor to say?

We have to choose the content too, or there is nothing to analyze, nothing to say and analyze. We don’t just make rules and make token uses of those rules - we say things we need rules to make clear.

I would say re the cartoon, I am sympathetic to both red and green, I am there in the middle, not locked, analytics versus ironic poetry, but with both. “You are here” continues to provide plenty of content.

Divine intervention?
— Banno — Fire Ologist

Divine intervention? — Banno

Definitely! :rofl:

Divine enough for me that you thought to post that. :up:

Seriously though, Earnest has a bit of perfection in it. God strikes again!

“You are here.” With a clear line between them. Spot on! :lol:

ADDED: Thanks for the earnest post!

SUPERIMPOSED: Ironically, (where irony is opposite earnestness) the Frank and Earnest that you reposted was most earnest.

on multiple levels. — Banno

:lol:

Are you not entertained? — Banno

Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. Turning every subject into the same discussion: Analytics applied to low hanging fruit.

I know there is a whole person there - not just a living truth table.

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. — Banno

You asked a lot of questions. I assume they were rhetorical then? For amusement. Fun.

And now I think you might need to learn more about paganism.

that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? — Banno

That is your own psychological issue - and a lot of people around here - disdain for the absolute and dogma. Despite the Spanish Inquisition, theology presupposes no such thing. I am a pretty solid Catholic - nothing, no pope, no dogma, no mystery - nothing oppresses me. I usually rely on reason, but I don’t even have to do that.

Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts. — Banno

Really?
@frank - you’ve been earnest with me? Betcha I’ve been more earnest with you..

a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate. — DifferentiatingEgg

Feel what way? What feeling am I talking about? Who is reciprocating on this thread?

I know more about Christianity than you do. — frank

Maybe. I don’t know.

One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason," — Leontiskos

That’s enough. I can let someone have that. If they then want to ask about it and ask me how I believe it, and what I believe, I get the perplexity.

But if they are satisfied with that, and that “not able to be proven by natural reason” sums up the Trinity, and they have no honest question or curiosity about such believers, then it is certainly logical to assume a conversation about what the Trinity is will go nowhere. Which we have assumed from the beginning. Because we are logical.

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. — Leontiskos

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

But unless there was an honest interest in what we are saying, they just won’t see the logic. It’s not like natural reason.

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

I agree with that 100%. And you said it well as usual.

I also do not think it contradicts any of the above for me to say this:

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. — Fire Ologist

But it was imprecise, and contradicts your quote above, for me to say this:

the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound. — Fire Ologist

This is said more precisely as “the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes apparent contradictions easily arise.”

I agree fully with everything C.S.Lewis said too. However, I think @Banno and @frank would say that the mere reference to three persons in one God is an occasion where “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can.””

I disagree with Banno and Frank that the Trinity is meaningless and contradictory, but I grant (I think in agreement with Augustine and Aquinas) that it is very treacherous to attempt a straight logical line through it - though not impossible, but understandably difficult to speak about.

Let me digress to make a small point. It’s perfectly logical and there is no apparent contradiction to say there can only be one God. Without measuring God’s power, we can say God is the highest power, the immortal all powerful one. If there were two such beings, neither would be God, because neither would be highest or all powerful. God can have no equal nor anyone higher, and if you like a lesser God, we should just come up with a new term because anything under God is in some sense wholly and utterly unlike God. What about a lesser God makes them God at all? Makes no sense.

This is logic. Reason can conclude monotheism makes sense and non-monotheistic religions do not make sense when they use the term “God”.

If Frank and Banno were arguing against the logic of monotheism, we would need no revelation and would make no reference to mystery - it’s simple logical inference to say, if there is any God, there is only one God.

Now we Christians have been blessed to know this one God through the Son, as Father. And have come to learn the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and that the Son says he and the Father are one, and his spirit is God as he and the father are God. The church is the mystical Body of Christ, and his Bride, as when man and woman marry and become one flesh…

I see the logic in all of that. I can go on making distinctions, and correcting error (like some of the things Frank said make no sense and contradict what I said and what the Church says). And there is probably some error in what I just said, but I could be corrected, because there is a logic here.

I agree with you and @Leontiskos - the Trinity is the opposite of meaningless.

But I also see that, on its face, (from outside this milieu as Banno put it), if you did not hear the Son speak, a “Trinity” could easily appear to make little sense. It is like explaining in words how an apple tastes - the words only make sense to apple eaters. It’s sweet, but not like sugar, because it is tart but not so much as a lemon, and it crunches but not like a roasted walnut, because it is juicy, but drier than a plumb - we could go on and on but unless you ate an apple you might see only apparent contradiction.

So the OP was fairly doomed. Because unless it was asked with a humble spirit and the open mind of someone who is truly curious, it is highly unlikely the detractors of Christianity will ever get a sense of how the Trinity really tastes. (God even gave us the Eucharist - he did his best to reach everyone from every angle! I have hope, which is why I keep posting…)

If you think “It’s a mystery” equates to “so there is nothing anyone can say” then why ask? — Fire Ologist

First of all, I think I differ a bit (slightly) from @Leontiskos and maybe @Count Timothy von Icarus.

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.

But we’ve heard enough of that on this thread already. Enough talking over each other’s heads.

To reset:

So what is a “self”? How is it that “you” and “me” are having this exchange; unless there is an identifiable “self” in each of us in which this “exchange” is taking place?

But “self” is a mystery, no? Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, (because the concept of self-identity is perilous if not illusory and really not coherent and not a conversation about any “thing”.)

Mystery abounds, and the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.

I just don’t thereby conclude from the contradiction that the subject of the mystery does not exist. I conclude I need to keep figuring out a way to talk about it.

Contradiction is a dead end, but only along one line of reasoning. We can hit the dead end, and reset to try another way.

I don’t ignore Freud because he divided the self into id, ego and superego, for instance. We can rationally consider Freud, and the difference between the superego and the id in the conscious and subconscious self, for instance, even though billions of people say the self is an illusion (including in many ways, me).

So @frank do you really wonder about the Christian narrative? Do you really wonder how some Christian can rationally discuss the “Trinity”, like Freud may have discussed a “self”?

Here is a premise: logic is like one of the senses; you can rely on it to penetrate the world, and live by it most days, but every so often it leads down a dead end (mirage/set of all sets, the infinite continuum of impossible becoming), even unto death and madness.

So maybe, sometimes, regarding some situations and certain subjects, relying ONLY on our senses and our reason will not deliver us from the dead end. Maybe beings like us have more that penetrates experience besides reason. Or our senses. We have understanding that usually follows after reason, but can understand and not know why or how just as well.

Logic isn’t God to me. It’s just a tool, like an eyeball.

Sometimes we can relate with things through our ears, but don’t see or can’t picture them at all. Other times we can relate to things that make no logical sense. That doesn’t mean those things can’t be seen; or can’t be logically explained (by me); but absent that vision or logic, it also doesn’t mean those things can’t can’t be beheld and talked about in other ways (by me).

To say “it’s a mystery” is still to logically identify an “it”. All logic isn’t lost in the notion of three persons in one God. It’s just not that simple.

Have I already abused language too much for you?

Not worthy of reply?

↪frank - I'll take that as a "no." — Leontiskos

Yep. No honest curiosity, or basic humble respect.

accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. — frank

How about, it’s not merely beyond comprehension. There are things we can say about God.

Can you accept that? It would seem you could if you were asking someone to explain the Christian narrative. But then, are you honestly asking for anything new?

There is no communication here, — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes. People “ask questions” without any sense of actual curiousity.

The reason the faithful beat this dead horse is because belief in God is attached to hope for all of us - we hope someone might be moved because we hope someone says something clarifying and true.

But yeah, I have no idea why I hope for you all, or me. I’m a mystery to myself.

Speaking to some people produces a contradiction of the word “communication”. We are all living explosions. The contradictory animal.

I just meant that where a mystery is accompanied by contradiction, you can derive anything; that's the principle of explosion. — jorndoe

I know.

So what is a “self”?
How is it that “you” and “me” are having this exchange; unless there is an identifiable “self” in each of us in which this “exchange” is taking place?

Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, like “I said to myself that there is no such thing as the ‘self’.”

Mystery abounds, and the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.

I just don’t thereby conclude from the contradiction that the subject of the mystery does not exist. I conclude I need to keep figuring out a way to talk about it.

So yes, you can derive anything if you want to hold a contradiction is not a contradiction. Or you can say that the contradiction only means the words still fail to capture the diction, and keep talking.

But there is no use talking about a mystery with someone who doesn’t believe in the mystery.

instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?" — Banno

This is off.

And I’m not judging you or your beliefs. I’m saying I, as a Catholic (if you are interested in how Catholics think) would never say it this way.

You brought the term “ought to believe” into it.

If there is a purely logical, rational accounting for the Trinity or God on a cross, we don’t ever need to ask the question “why ought?” If we could make a perfect syllogism concluding the Trinity then it’s no longer a question of “ought believe” - it’s just logical inference. It is just “must know”.

You are not really asking “why ought you believe this.”

So here is where the question “why ought I believe this” arises: you love and trust your father, he’s brought you life and raised you, and now he asks you to believe him and do something nonsensical as far as you can tell, but something he simply asked for and simply wants and that he says will help you like he helped you as a child - why ought I believe him? He defies my reason and logic? Why ought I believe him anyway?

That is where a question of “ought believe” arises.

This whole thread is about “what is the logic of Christianity” not “why ought I believe.”

Only after facing a situation where you truly ask yourself “why ought I believe” AND you choose to believe AND act in this belief accordingly, THEN you start to see the logic in it, and come up with pictures of trinities and God’s becoming human to sacrifice their own lives on a cross to rise before us and then leave us to continue our seeking….

It won’t make sense starting with a calculator set at 0. We ought not believe it if we are living in a purely rational world of IS and no real ought to choose from anyway.

But “ought” is real for us. We are like God in this way (which, in this thread, is ironic).

Do you believe that anything that defies logic is impossible? — frank

Anything that defies logic is the definition of impossible.

Miracles are impossible, for instance. If there was an explanation, they might not be miraculous, unless the explanation was more impossibility, like a Triune God. Then they make perfect sense.

I'm just asking for a coherent account of the Trinity. — Banno

I’m sure you understand the concepts. Because you are picking them apart with logical precision.

God is one being.
But in this God, He is with Himself, because He proceeds from himself. God is gift, given, and received, at once.

So to make this easier to understand, let’s just say God is one being, in the person of the father, and the son and the Holy Spirit.

Worth any further analysis?

The next step isn’t done with a calculator (1+1+1=3 persons and/or =1God.)

The next step isn’t done with logic (because logic tells me this is nonsense so far).

The next step only occurs when you say “I don’t quite get the math or the logic yet, but what else does this mean about me and about God? What is the significance of a father and of a son? Why spirit?”

I do agree we have to get back to the logic and the math. It is important NOT to believe there two Gods, so math and reason are important there. We must use logic to see one God, and to distinguish a father from a son. So logic can’t be abandoned.

But why is God so difficult to grasp?

Maybe because God is difficult to grasp.

(Now I’m using the opposite of a contradiction, a tautology.)

why I believe in Judaism. It's because I explored all the world religions one by one and I chose it after a lifelong search — Hanover

I believe in the same God as you do. You just haven’t met the Messiah yet. You will. God promised Abraham. You will.

God bless brother.

watch out for explosions. — jorndoe

Life is full of peril. Trinity or not.

God the son told me his father and he are one God. It’s a bitch.

I think it’s everyone’s preconceived notions of what and who God is supposed to be that impede the clear meaning of his revelation, not the impossibility of it all - but that is just me, another fool Catholic.

How does that look from outside that milieu? — Banno

However it looks, I’m sure we’ve all been there on the outside of some impossible question with some subject - I’m sure there is mystery in your life for instance.

I’m not going to disrespect your curiosity or attempts to share observations about what is mysterious to you.

This thread could be about Catholicism, but it’s not.

If you think “It’s a mystery” equates to “so there is nothing anyone can say” then why ask?

I wouldn’t ask someone to explain themselves if I already thought (or knew) they had to be nonsensical.

The OP and most of what followed did not involve honest questions.

How does it work? — Banno

Some things are hard to say.

Some things work, but it is hard to say how.

That is the starting point. When talking about how Jesus on the cross is God, or how God is one while three persons. It’s going to be hard to say.

Do you think there is a step two? Honestly.

How do you think the milieu of this thread looks to someone who understands God anyway?

I don’t sense any real curiosity about Catholicism here.

A better approach might well be to accept that the Trinity is a mystery, and not to look for coherence. If that's your point, I'll agree. — Banno

Well, I agree it is impossible to simply grasp the Trinity, especially when trying to do so in a math class or a logic class.

But when two Christians are faced with what they believe Jesus said and meant when he said he and his father are one, they can make reasonable statements about it, to try to grapple with it and understand it more, and correct error about it and discover new facts. Just like two mathematicians grappling with the set of all sets. It’s incoherent, but still it is there to grapple with, to perplex, to face head on anyway.

In other words, yes it’s a mystery, but that doesn’t have to nothing more can be said. That doesn’t mean nothing can be said as true about the Trinity and no one can say other things are false about it. Ground can be covered while the mystery remains.

trinity is a mystery, then leave it as such — Banno

I think you can still reason about mysteries.

Like Frege and Russell did. “How the hell do sets collapse into impossibility?”

Do you think we can discover something new by changing the perspective in this way? — Astorre

I think we might discover a way to understand something (namely, being/becoming), that does not linguistically look rational.

Meaning, the way we normally talk follows a reasoning.

But there is no normal way to talk about “being” qua being. When we talk normally, and make our topic “being”, we impose things in the topic that obfuscate and cover up what we are trying to say.

When talking about being/becoming, it is often the case that with each word we use, we turn our attention away from being/becoming.

Like you said the question “What is being?” doesn’t even make sense in Russian. I think what we are discovering is that, while “being qua being” is mysterious, and therefore, worthy of inquiry and discussion, even if we discover some wisdom about it, it will be difficult to say or demonstrate with reasonable statements.

So short answer to your question is, yes, I do think a new perspective, or really a new eyeball, (a new logic), needs to be developed to philosophically (not metaphorically or mystically) talk about being/becoming. And your observation about what is present in some languages but not in others relating to something so basic as “is” are really good because they point to a newer method (way of looking - through linguistic analysis), and a bit of new wisdom as a result (being as a piece of Becoming, so to speak).

I think people who find themselves in opposition about God questions might actually show a bit more support for each other’s perspectives.

Set Theory is like a neutral ground to understand seeking to logically penetrate a mystery that seems impenetrable.

Sets obviously function.

But then there is the Set of all Sets - impossible and defies all logic (yet it keeps rearing its head and underpinning logical progress..)

This is a type of mystery in the face of clear evidence/logic. We sort of have to live with how simple sets clearly are useful, AND how sets are ultimately impossible. We can call this where logic meets mystery.

So we can give the believers in the mysterious Trinity a pass (letting them have their evidence AND letting them attempt to logically explain and make coherent something that seems must be a paradox and to yield contradictory statements).

I’m just saying, the emergence of mystery is not fatal and need not end the reasonable discussion.

The question is this: given enough time and computing power, can humanity eventually "discover" an interpretation that renders the text coherent? While in truth, inventing one out of whole cloth? — hypericin

That’s two totally different questions
1. Can we see the meaning in the text?
2. Would we fool ourselves that a reasoning we imposed on the text was in the text when it was not?

My answer to both is no, probably not (“definitely not for me, but Incant speak for everyone.)

Seems reasonable to assume it is language and text. But maybe it isn’t. But still seems reasonable to assume it was made by something sentient, like us, but maybe not. Until we find a Rosetta Stone, or a decryption key, confirming it is indeed a language at all, or even an artifact of a knowing being, I think most people would never get too far convincing others about the “meaning” of its “language.”

Did you see the movie “Contact” with Jodi Foster? They had a similar alien text problem. The aliens built in a decryption key to help other intelligent species learn the language. Neat movie.

There are numbers all over the place — frank

Like in order to have a single open and honest discussion, we have to first have half of such a discussion, and before that, half of that half…until we realize this goes on infinitely and a single open and honest discussion was impossible from the start. Too many numbers…

The only way that unconscious entities can be brought to bear within a deliberative philosophy forum is by first bringing them into consciousness. -Leontiskos — Joshs

Yes.

For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. The challenge we often deal with is in articulating why and how they are important to us. — Joshs

Leon’s unconscious entities are neutral and just need to be brought to the fore. Leon is pointing to “what”.
Joshs unconscious entities are the “why and how” of importance.

Still yes.

how long we last until we start talking past one another. — Joshs

I admit my writing style is not the best, I go too fast, fail to edit, but I truly try to be open and honest and clear and respectful, and even grateful, and in-debted when I read some of the things you guys make so clear. My apologies. I can be a wise ass and even know I sound dismissive but I am truly not dismissive and would rather just know we all already can get along as people, like cousins, so we could hash out a good, blood soaked argument, never talking past anyone.

Calling each other out for saying something stupid is one thing. That doesn’t mean you aren’t also brilliant. At least that’s how I do it. (See, I just used a double-negative because that is how I would say it “doesn’t mean you aren’t”. Sorry! Internet is a blessing and a fickle bitch.)

“wokeness” concerns all of us. — Number2018

Yes.

the challenge with wokeness lies in its resistance to precise definition or straightforward philosophical inquiry. — Number2018

Wokeness is a reflection of the fact that precise definition and straight inquiry are challenging to come by. Wokeness embraces the challenge leaving the end, the overcoming and completion of the challenge, unfinished, without “precise definition” or “straight” lines of inquiry.

Yes.

Its meaning shifts depending on political perspective, social context, and rhetorical intent. — Number2018

You could have stopped here to fix the point this makes to me: “It’s meaning shifts.”

So nothing you just said about where its meaning shifts (perspective,etc) is wrong at all. But I pause at simply the notion “woke’s meaning is a shifting thing, unfixed.” That, I think, is a perfectly neutral observation about “wokeism” - we are going to have leave some lines undefined and unclear if we are to clearly see “what is woke.” That’s what woke is - it resists to stagnant form embracing change qua change; but that is always woke. So when we draw the line and point clearly “that is woke - like trans rights are woke” - we are also pointing not to any clear lines but maybe to areas or frameworks or local systems of agreement…

Likely, what makes wokeness so urgent is its implicit relation to power. — Number2018

Yes, It is urgent. It is immediate, and self-evident at times, like injustice. This involved is real power that must be managed, and judged, and in support of calls to action, a morality.

Its influence is subtle, diffuse, and often operates below the level of conscious awareness. — Number2018

This speaks to how it is undefined again. What is unconscious is the same qua unconscious for the woke and the anti-woke (qua unconscious). But this unconscious for the woke is a comfort level with ambiguity and undefined things. So it’s influence may be subtle but that is not intrinsic to wokeness - its influence could be dramatic and loud.

The term unconscious is often overused and should not be understood here in a purely psychological sense. Rather, it refers to a regime that operates across heterogeneous domains and builds a cumulative strategic resonance. — Number2018

Yes, that is part of the “how” Joshs was relating/contrasting with Deluze and the other writers.

[this produces] specific expressions — Number2018

Yes - there is a particular character, nevertheless, to the woke. (Like with anything, there is its particular character and how this blends in with its context…)

not as such due to objective empirical evidence, but because of how they resonate within affective and social contexts. — Number2018

Yes. The character of wokeness involves its context more than its own defined “in-itself” and this “affective and social” context IS where woke finds it clearest definition in its struggling self.

There is a lot more to say..

We now seem to be discussing how to discuss “How to develop methods of discussion” with a sub-topic “methods of discussing wokeness” (and a hope that we will eventually discuss wokeness itself).

Relativity tells us spacetime can be stretched, — flannel jesus

Ok - so invisible gravity has been replaced by space which stretch and compressed etc can be measured. Like things can be measured. Ok, I sit corrected. :up:

The arena — flannel jesus

But “arena” has to be analogy - it’s not an actual arena. It’s not like “space” can be a “thing-in-itself” like an arena is a thing.

So I’m not trying to argue against Einstein, or Newton, or you. I’m just saying it is all still, in my mind, “full of holes” (if holes can be used to fill something).

but without judging the value of the things being stretched, just to judge the length of the stretch — Fire Ologist

You forgot:

5. Pretty white girl who talks about her genes.
6. Someone who is having a seizure because they saw the ad.

Totally interesting video and great teacher. Will watch more videos.

So now that gravity isn’t a force, what the hell is space- time (with a curvature to it)?

We go from abracadabra to hocus-pocus.
Job security for people way smarter than me.

It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesn’t even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault. — praxis

Maybe, but without judging the value of the things being stretched, just to judge the length of the stretch: is the above stretch between a man taking over a women’s sporting event (maybe as a precedent for all women’s sports) and child abuse/sexual assault a bigger stretch than an ad with a pretty white girl talking about have good genes/jeans and being offended by her? I’d say only the woke hear that sort of dog-whistle. But all of the girls in surfing competition (if not everyone who watched, could see what was expressly being done (no whistle sensitivity needed).