Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Agnos1 · 10-06-2002, 11:25 PM

Keith,

There you go; some reasoning. Okay, is God subject to: "A is A; a thing is only what it is. A thing cannot be other than it is, nor can it act contrary to its nature." If we define God and thus limit God to what we know about the logic of existence we get a "handle" on God. Such statements as "God is good" means he can only BE good and therefore nothing he does can be bad. He cannot regret, he cannot learn new information because he's omniscient. He therefore cannot be surprised or disappointed, or wrathful due to things unexpected.

What about the immutability of God? Does the concept of the Trinity imply that God can change? The analogy the Christians use of water transforming into ice or steam or vapor (and yet being the "same") denotes "change," does it not? Is there a contradiction here about the non-changeability of God?

Is anyone here knowledgeable enough about the religious paradigm to argue the Trinity point from a religious perspective? Obviously it falls apart from an Athiest perspective, but to really get through to some religious people I think being able to quote verses and Bible "logic" helps a great deal.

abe smith · 10-07-2002, 04:45 AM

As ALL that TRINITARIAN stuff is a fantastic
never -rational unsubstantiated human *fiction*, anything that any fool chooses to say about it is just as FALSE as what anyone else says about it. Probably there've been more square miles of bullshit wasted on that than on anything else ever .

Keith Russell · 10-07-2002, 06:55 AM

Agnos said:
Keith, there you go; some reasoning.

Keith: Am I supposed to use a different kind of reasoning--faulty reasoning perhaps--to allow your God the possibility of existence? Sorry, no can do.

Agnos: Okay, is God subject to: "A is A; a thing is only what it is. A thing cannot be other than it is, nor can it act contrary to its nature." If we define God and thus limit God to what we know about the logic of existence we get a "handle" on God.

Keith: If you wish to know whether 'God' can be real or not, you have to use the laws of reality. If you have to ignore, suspend, or reject consideration of those laws, in order to allow 'God', then there's your answer--if you are willing to face it.

Agnos: Such statements as "God is good" means he can only BE good and therefore nothing he does can be bad. He cannot regret, he cannot learn new information because he's omniscient. He therefore cannot be surprised or disappointed, or wrathful due to things unexpected.

Keith: Sorry, I don't speak this language.

Agnos: What about the immutability of God?

Keith: The only thing which is immutable is existence itself, and you refuse to apply the laws of existence/reality to your concept of 'God'.

Agnos: Does the concept of the Trinity imply that God can change?

Keith: I cannot answer this. I cannot apply a false concept (Trinity) to another false concept ('God'), and have any hope whatsoever of arriving at anything even remotely resembling 'truth'.

Agnos: The analogy the Christians use of water transforming into ice or steam or vapor (and yet being the "same") denotes "change," does it not?

Keith: These are different forms of the same substance. The fact that H2O at certain termperatures is a gas, and at other temperatures is a liquid, and at still others is a solid, in no way violates of the Law of Identity (A is A). Saying that 'God' could be three distinct 'perons', yet at once fully 'God' does violate that Law. It would be akin to claiming that H2O can be ice, water, and steam simultaneously--or that H20 can also be HCL and O2 simultaneously.

If 'God' is real, 'He/She/It' must follow the laws of reality.

Agnos: Is there a contradiction here about the non-changeability of God?

Keith: There is an even more basic contradiction, and that is that if you define 'God', it is clear that 'God' is not possible.

Agnos: Is anyone here knowledgeable enough about the religious paradigm to argue the Trinity point from a religious perspective? Obviously it falls apart from an Athiest perspective, but to really get through to some religious people I think being able to quote verses and Bible "logic" helps a great deal.

Keith: I believe that religion begins with false premises, and proceeds from there. I don't believe you will have any luck by accepting some of their premises, in order to point out that some of the conclusions drawn from those premises are illogical.

They can always claim that 'God' transcends logic, and where does that leave you?

Better to attack religion's initial premises directly, IMO.

Keith.

Boro Nut · 10-07-2002, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agnos1:
<strong>Is The Intepretation of the Trinity Accurate</strong>

How can it be. There were four of them.

Father
Son
Nan
Holy Ghost (maybe they don't count this one).

Boro Nut

Tercel · 10-09-2002, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
I hadn't heard the history behind the 'concept'... of the 'Trinity'.
...
But, knowing the history behind it, still doesn't make the 'concept' itself any more valid; it's still as nonsensical as ever.

Er, you call what Tristan said "History"?? Whatever happened to "Criticial Thinking" and "not believing everything you read"? Especially when you know Tristan is an atheist who most likely doesn't think much of the doctrine of the Trinity and likely has more than a slight bias towards rubbishing it unduly.

Tercel · 10-09-2002, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agnos1:
Isn't it true, Kenny, that the Trinity was an attempt by the Catholic Church to reconcile Roman pantheism with Jewish monotheism after the fact (381 A.D.) and from sources extrinsic to the Bible?

That's a new one on me. It wins this weeks prize for Most Wierd and Wonderful Theory though...

Care to elaborate further? The Trinity certainly seems to have been around in the 2nd Century, with Tertullian using the word, and apparently Celsus mentioning it as a central Christian Doctrine. I suppose it depends exactly what you mean by the doctrine of the Trinity: obviously the full blown official doctrinal definition of *exactly* what the trinity was (see the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html" target="_blank">Athanasian creed</a> for example) and *exactly* what was heresy did not happen 'til there were arguments over it in the 3-5th centuries and the need to establish it for certain. But the basic idea that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God seems to have always been part of Christian beliefs as far back as they can be traced, and the Bible seems to indicate strongly that these beliefs extended back to the very earlist Christians.

Your mention of "sources extrinsic to the Bible" has me stumped: What are you referring to?

Tercel · 10-09-2002, 02:43 AM

Keith,

1. Agnos isn't a Christian.

2.

Quote:

First, you've got to establish that Jesus actually existed. Then, you ought to establish that the Jesus that lived, lives as the Bible claims he lived. Then, you need to show that the miracles he allegedly casued actually took place as the Bible claims and that they were the result of God.

Actually, it would be perfectly possible to believe in the Trinity without believing a single one of those things to be true...

3.

Quote:

The Trinity is wrong, for the exact same reason that the concept of 'God' is wrong; it violates the Laws of Identity and Causality. The concept of 'God' contradicts reality; and so does the concept 'Trinity'.

A is A; a thing is only what it is. A thing cannot be other than it is, nor can it act contrary to its nature.

A thing cannot thus be both itself, and God; nor could a thing be itself, and something else simultaneously.

I'm not sure I follow? Unless you think the Trinity is about 1 equalling 3 (which is hardly a charitable interpretation of it) then I don't see how the law of identity can be violated by the Trinity. The Trinity does not say that one equals three, but that there are "three persons in one essence". Now if it was "3 persons in one person", or "3 essences in 1 essence" then you'd have a good case for the law of identity complaint. But as it stands: no.
Perhaps a more practical, and less theoretical interpretation might help a little:
There are 3 powers in the world to whom it is right to give the title God, which we label "Father", "Son" and "Spirit". Now, how is this different to Polytheism? (or specifically Tritheism) eg How's it different to believing in 3 separate beings each of which is "a" god, eg like "Zeus", "Apollo" and "Hera"? The most obvious answer would seem to be unity of will. In the Greek stories their gods argue and fight, they want different things, they squabble. Basically, distinguishing between the different gods is important because the gods want different things. Whereas it is Christian teaching that the 3 Gods of the Christian Godhead will as one and act together in what they do. eg the creation story in Genesis is a good example - the references to God are in the plural "We" (eg let *US* make man in *OUR* image etc), yet all the verbs are in the singular indicating a complete unity of action. (okay so granted the writer probably had nothing of the sort in mind, but it's a useful illustration) Or if you'd like a bible quote:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." John 5:19

To boil it down further the idea of the Trinity is that there are somehow 3 "persons" out there who are worthy of the title God, and yet that they are somehow, someway, so committed to each other in love, and so completely unified in will and action, and perhaps further unified in ways beyond our complete understanding, such that it is justifiable also to refer to them as one being, or as one "in essence". Thus we get fun catch phrases like "3 persons in one essence" or "3 gods in one godhead" which sound good but your average Joe Christian hasn't really the foggiest at what it means, and as for theologians... well as the saying goes "the more you know, the more you know you don't know"!

It's the standard human tendency when confronted with something we really haven't a clue about to try and make up big words, excessively complex theories, and to and try to sound like we really do know something. Just look at things like Quantum Physics (What can the law of identity like better than a wave-particle duality?), Neuroscience (the wonderful science of cutting up brains and finding we *still* haven't a clue how they work) and Cosmology (the art of building wonderful hypotheses about things on the other side of the universe and/or that happened billions of years ago all based on other hypotheses based on some other hypotheses based on a few tiny photons)... sheesh I *am* feeling cynical today aren't I?

Well, I've realised I'm rambling so I'm going to stop there, and hope somebody learned something from that.

Keith Russell · 10-09-2002, 06:47 AM

Tercel said:
"The most obvious answer would seem to be unity of will. In the Greek stories their gods argue and fight, they want different things, they squabble. Basically, distinguishing between the different gods is important because the gods want different things. Whereas it is Christian teaching that the 3 Gods of the Christian Godhead--"

Well, you still with three 'Gods' here, not one.

Keith.

Agnos1 · 10-09-2002, 01:14 PM

Keith shows Tercel's lack of argument, because Tercel had said that somewhow "unity of purpose" combined the three aspects or entities into one God. Re continued with:

Quote:

Perhaps a more practical, and less theoretical interpretation might help a little:
There are 3 powers in the world to whom it is right to give the title God, which we label "Father", "Son" and "Spirit". Now, how is this different to Polytheism?

A trinitarian argued this same point by analogizing the Godhead to humanity. We can all be labelled as "humans" (the essence) but we are also individuals (you, me, and Keith).

So if we as humans unite in purpose do we lose our identity as individuals? Are we not still distinct entities, or are you sayint that we become the Borg or something when we are "as one" as Jesus would say? You seem to be establishing an argument AGAINST the Trinity by saying 1+1+1=1

Agnos1 · 10-09-2002, 01:40 PM

More for Tercel regarding origins of the Trinity Doctrine:

"The early Christians came out of the strictly monotheistic world of Judaism
into the rampantly polytheistic Roman Empire. The Doctrine of the Trinity,
"God in one substance, but in three persona, Gk. hypostaseis" was an
attempt to position themselves theologically between these extremes.

Starting from the "Baptismal Formula" of Matt. 28:19, "baptizing them into the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:", Theophilus of
Antioch utilized the Greek term trias for three-in-one-ness. This was
translated by Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) as trinitas, explained as "three persons
in one substance". This was adopted as the viewpoint of main-line
Christianity at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). It was then further developed
by the Cappadocian monks (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa),
and formally proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.).
Augustine of Hippo's De Trinitate became its authoritative explanation."

And if you look in Acts, Tercel, you won't find baptisms performed in anyone's name other than "Jesus," so why did they ignore this part of the Bible when deciding on the Trinity approach?

The nearest thing there is to a "formal statement" is the Athanasian Creed (which is neither a
creed, nor composed by St. Athanasius!). It presents a long and obscure
argument about the divine nature. Further, the Creed informs us, "One cannot
be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully." But its vehemence merely
highlights its flimsy substance."

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Agnos1 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2002, 11:25 PM	#21
Agnos1 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Walnut Creek Posts: 41	Keith, There you go; some reasoning. Okay, is God subject to: "A is A; a thing is only what it is. A thing cannot be other than it is, nor can it act contrary to its nature." If we define God and thus limit God to what we know about the logic of existence we get a "handle" on God. Such statements as "God is good" means he can only BE good and therefore nothing he does can be bad. He cannot regret, he cannot learn new information because he's omniscient. He therefore cannot be surprised or disappointed, or wrathful due to things unexpected. What about the immutability of God? Does the concept of the Trinity imply that God can change? The analogy the Christians use of water transforming into ice or steam or vapor (and yet being the "same") denotes "change," does it not? Is there a contradiction here about the non-changeability of God? Is anyone here knowledgeable enough about the religious paradigm to argue the Trinity point from a religious perspective? Obviously it falls apart from an Athiest perspective, but to really get through to some religious people I think being able to quote verses and Bible "logic" helps a great deal.

10-07-2002, 04:45 AM	#22
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	As ALL that TRINITARIAN stuff is a fantastic never -rational unsubstantiated human fiction, anything that any fool chooses to say about it is just as FALSE as what anyone else says about it. Probably there've been more square miles of bullshit wasted on that than on anything else ever .

10-07-2002, 06:55 AM	#23
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Agnos said: Keith, there you go; some reasoning. *Keith: Am I supposed to use a different* kind of reasoning--faulty reasoning perhaps--to allow your God the possibility of existence? Sorry, no can do.** Agnos: Okay, is God subject to: "A is A; a thing is only what it is. A thing cannot be other than it is, nor can it act contrary to its nature." If we define God and thus limit God to what we know about the logic of existence we get a "handle" on God. Keith: If you wish to know whether 'God' can be real or not, you have to use the laws of reality. If you have to ignore, suspend, or reject consideration of those laws, in order to allow 'God', then there's your answer--if you are willing to face it. Agnos: Such statements as "God is good" means he can only BE good and therefore nothing he does can be bad. He cannot regret, he cannot learn new information because he's omniscient. He therefore cannot be surprised or disappointed, or wrathful due to things unexpected. Keith: Sorry, I don't speak this language. Agnos: What about the immutability of God? Keith: The only thing which is immutable is existence itself, and you refuse to apply the laws of existence/reality to your concept of 'God'. Agnos: Does the concept of the Trinity imply that God can change? Keith: I cannot answer this. I cannot apply a false concept (Trinity) to another false concept ('God'), and have any hope whatsoever of arriving at anything even remotely resembling 'truth'. Agnos: The analogy the Christians use of water transforming into ice or steam or vapor (and yet being the "same") denotes "change," does it not? Keith: These are different forms of the same substance. The fact that H2O at certain termperatures is a gas, and at other temperatures is a liquid, and at still others is a solid, in no way violates of the Law of Identity (A is A). Saying that 'God' could be three distinct 'perons', yet at once fully 'God' does violate that Law. It would be akin to claiming that H2O can be ice, water, and steam simultaneously--or that H20 can also be HCL and O2 simultaneously. If 'God' is real, 'He/She/It' must follow the laws of reality. Agnos: Is there a contradiction here about the non-changeability of God? Keith: There is an even more basic contradiction, and that is that if you define 'God', it is clear that 'God' is not possible. Agnos: Is anyone here knowledgeable enough about the religious paradigm to argue the Trinity point from a religious perspective? Obviously it falls apart from an Athiest perspective, but to really get through to some religious people I think being able to quote verses and Bible "logic" helps a great deal. Keith: I believe that religion begins with false premises, and proceeds from there. I don't believe you will have any luck by accepting some of their premises, in order to point out that some of the conclusions drawn from those premises are illogical. They can always claim that 'God' transcends logic, and where does that leave you? Better to attack religion's initial premises directly, IMO. Keith.

10-09-2002, 06:47 AM	#28
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Tercel said: "The most obvious answer would seem to be unity of will. In the Greek stories their gods argue and fight, they want different things, they squabble. Basically, distinguishing between the different gods is important because the gods want different things. Whereas it is Christian teaching that the 3 Gods of the Christian Godhead--" Well, you still with three 'Gods' here, not one. Keith.

10-09-2002, 01:40 PM	#30
Agnos1 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Walnut Creek Posts: 41	More for Tercel regarding origins of the Trinity Doctrine: "The early Christians came out of the strictly monotheistic world of Judaism into the rampantly polytheistic Roman Empire. The Doctrine of the Trinity, "God in one substance, but in three persona, Gk. hypostaseis" was an attempt to position themselves theologically between these extremes. Starting from the "Baptismal Formula" of Matt. 28:19, "baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:", Theophilus of Antioch utilized the Greek term trias for three-in-one-ness. This was translated by Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) as trinitas, explained as "three persons in one substance". This was adopted as the viewpoint of main-line Christianity at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). It was then further developed by the Cappadocian monks (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa), and formally proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Augustine of Hippo's De Trinitate became its authoritative explanation." And if you look in Acts, Tercel, you won't find baptisms performed in anyone's name other than "Jesus," so why did they ignore this part of the Bible when deciding on the Trinity approach? The nearest thing there is to a "formal statement" is the Athanasian Creed (which is neither a creed, nor composed by St. Athanasius!). It presents a long and obscure argument about the divine nature. Further, the Creed informs us, "One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully." But its vehemence merely highlights its flimsy substance." [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Agnos1 ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.