The Trinity is illogical and irrational.

[Celsus]

The Trinity is illogical and irrational.

If The Son = God and The Father = God and the Spirit = God then The Son = The Father = The Spirit.

Which obviously is not the case since all three interact with each other as separate entities and did different things in the biblical stories.

The Son, The Father and The Spirit can form God together but not each be totally God.

1+1+1 = 3 and not 1.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 equals to 1 of course. But that's not what the Christian dogma says.

So is there anyone in here claiming that the Trinity can be explained logically and rationally?

[marco]

This logically gives three infinities.

In a sense, it would depend upon how one wants to parse the question, but I would come down on the side that there are multiple ‘infinities’ and some are larger than others (it’s true!).

Yet, this is contrasting mathematical sets (aleph numbers) with the colloquial understanding of ‘infinity’.

take care,
TFV

It is contrasting true with false; I gave a quick counterexample. Doubtless there is an infinity of them. I see you've made no attempt to parse the Trinity.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to marco]

Here’s the thing: I agreed with your interpretation. Nonetheless, I can see how someone would wriggle around the difference between sets and one (popular) definition of ‘infinity’.

As for my comments on The Trinity, I believe I may have posted something earlier in this thread. I am somewhat reticent about commenting on the topic because I haven’t seen anything edifying written on it from either the secular or religious perspective in some time and I am not a religious man so my interest is limited for reasons inherent. However, in thinking of aleph numbers it did bring to mind Nicolas Bourbaki, a group of mathematicians that sought to systematize all of mathematics. Despite enduring contributions to several fields, I believe their legacy is one of falling short of their bold aims. This may seem like a meandering aside, but perhaps I can formulate how it relates to the Trinity in some ill-conceived rant in the future.

Take care,
TFV

[marco]

As for my comments on The Trinity, I believe I may have posted something earlier in this thread. I am somewhat reticent about commenting on the topic because I haven’t seen anything edifying written on it from either the secular or religious perspective in some time and I am not a religious man so my interest is limited for reasons inherent. However, in thinking of aleph numbers it did bring to mind Nicolas Bourbaki, a group of mathematicians that sought to systematize all of mathematics. Despite enduring contributions to several fields, I believe their legacy is one of falling short of their bold aims. This may seem like a meandering aside, but perhaps I can formulate how it relates to the Trinity in some ill-conceived rant in the future.

Since the Trinity defies common sense it may well be possible to link it to aleph numbers. For a time school mathematics attempted to build on the Bourbaki ideas and children were introduced to set theory very early and very artificially. It was eventually discarded.

I have never witnessed any rant, ill-conceived or not, in what you say. You give the impression of a medieval monk emerging from the scriptorium with some new-found lesson to impart. Your words never dispel this not unpleasant portrait.

The Trinity fascinates me only because it plagued my boyish need to comprehend what I was told. Go well.

[arian]

[Replying to marco]

Here’s the thing: I agreed with your interpretation. Nonetheless, I can see how someone would wriggle around the difference between sets and one (popular) definition of ‘infinity’.

As for my comments on The Trinity, I believe I may have posted something earlier in this thread. I am somewhat reticent about commenting on the topic because I haven’t seen anything edifying written on it from either the secular or religious perspective in some time and I am not a religious man so my interest is limited for reasons inherent.

Being non-religious opens up the mind to understanding concepts like "infinity", "nothing" and of course the concept of God outside of the binds/chains of religious indoctrination.

You mentioned "(popular) definition of 'infinity'", do you believe there is such thing as "absolute Infinite", another words the 'Infinite' that contains everything finite, yet stands alone as 'Infinite'? Another words that you cannot place anything, I mean any-thing next to or outside of 'Infinite', not even another 'Infinite' because the first 'Infinite' then would not really be 'Infinite', (lol, I hope I made myself clear using all these infinites to try to explain One Infinite!??)

However, in thinking of aleph numbers it did bring to mind Nicolas Bourbaki, a group of mathematicians that sought to systematize all of mathematics. Despite enduring contributions to several fields, I believe their legacy is one of falling short of their bold aims. This may seem like a meandering aside, but perhaps I can formulate how it relates to the Trinity in some ill-conceived rant in the future.

Take care,
TFV

Aleph naught, or aleph numbers would be a set, so that would not explain "Infinite", just as holding a big mirror while your back is against your big bathroom mirror and looking into it seeing yourself and the mirror you're holding going off into infinity would not explain 'infinite'.

Anyways, coming to understand "Infinite" capital "I" as in the only possible One is the "evidence of God", who is ONE, which this religiously created Trinity Doctrine tries to dissolve into many. So you see that religion does have a hold on even those claiming non-religious. I invite you to actually step outside of religious doctrines, what you'll find is mind boggling, to many frightening, but to me it is the knowing of 'Absolute Truth'.

God, the Only One Possible bless you friend.

[marco]

Anyways, coming to understand "Infinite" capital "I" as in the only possible One is the "evidence of God", who is ONE, which this religiously created Trinity Doctrine tries to dissolve into many. So you see that religion does have a hold on even those claiming non-religious. I invite you to actually step outside of religious doctrines, what you'll find is mind boggling, to many frightening, but to me it is the knowing of 'Absolute Truth'.

God, the Only One Possible bless you friend.

You are right in saying "religiously created Trinity" but this is just one of the thousands of ways people have tried to get close to an understanding of your Infinite. Some Christian sects don't uphold the Trinity. Some regard it as blasphemous or polytheistic.
Some people search for traces of this Infinite and never find them. Some have spent, perhaps, forty years paying service, praying and hearing not a whisper.

Crucially, for many, this deafening silence speaks volumes. Go well.

[OpenYourEyes]

It's actually not that hard. There's 3 beings but one identity. Just think of multiple personality people - a more coherent form of it, of course.

The trinity is the belief that the father, son, and holy spirit are the same being, in 3 different spirits so to speak. a rather bad anology I personally use would be something of three minds in one body, something like that (sorry for the bad analogy)

That would have been easy to understand, if only Trinitians do not flat out say it's heretical to treat God as one committee of three beings. Why is that such a sticking point? One God with three parts would have been logical and so easy to understand. Why is it so important to insist each personality is the whole God and not one third of God?

The only problem I see is the part where you mention "one third of God". To some that may mean that not all have the same power or authority. The Catholic Church views all 3 persons as being separate but coexistent and divine. All of the reasoning is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia: Blessed Trinity, read section titled Proof of doctrine from Scripture.

My main point was to explain how 3 separate beings can be one and so far I see that my brain analogy, in post #165, is valid.

[marco]

My main point was to explain how 3 separate beings can be one and so far I see that my brain analogy, in post #165, is valid.

It is a clever analogy. Here is what you say:

" Perhaps the Trinity is like 3 interconnecting brains functioning in one body. This should even be possible for us to do in the near future with scientific advancements."

The three persons don't function IN one God - they are each one God. Thus brain1 is the body; brain2 is the body. If of course these function as the left and right models you described, giving different instructions, then we are back to describing separate parts in a body.
Aside from this, the notion of "body" means that apart from the brain there are other bits that make up this body, but your analogy attempts to equate body with the concept of God, so there should be no other parts.

The Trinity cannot be simulated by anything we know rationally. When we find an apparent analogy, we can find a shortcoming.

[ttruscott]

The Trinity is illogical and irrational.
...
So is there anyone in here claiming that the Trinity can be explained logically and rationally?

Of course it is if you try to define GOD by math. That's like trying to use music to understand elephants!! What makes a cat a cat and not a finch? The attributes of cats and finche's are different right so they can be defined by their attributes.

The attributes of divine people are to be all knowing, all powerful and all benevolent for instance. But there is another attribute of the divine nature which is that the divine attributes cause a unity of all divine persons such that they can be referred to as ONE, meaning such a Unity that the word ONE expresses a truth.

There are three divine people who have a divine unity as well as their divine individuality and that Unity has the name of YHWH.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 198 by ttruscott]


"There are three divine people who have a divine unity as well as their divine individuality and that Unity has the name of YHWH."

So, if we are image and likeness we should also have three people with their individuality.
I think its called split personality.

[marco]

[Replying to post 198 by ttruscott]


"There are three divine people who have a divine unity as well as their divine individuality and that Unity has the name of YHWH."

So, if we are image and likeness we should also have three people with their individuality.
I think its called split personality.

To be fair - though I disagree with the image and likeness stuff - no one is claiming we're exact replicas otherwise I'd be writing this without using my fingers. I think the Trinity notion is enough impossibility without introducing extra items of impossibility not quite claimed.