Mixing
Is being infinite of each person of the Trinity contradictory?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being infinite (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.
- So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being infinite.
- If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.
- If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.
- Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being infinite (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.
- So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being infinite.
- If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.
- If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.
- Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
1
Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
5 hours ago
Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
4 hours ago
@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
4 hours ago
1
I upvoted because I think the underlying line of questioning is important, but for this to be relevant to more than atheism one needs to make sure one has not created a straw man. One helps to guarantee one is not creating a straw may by getting quotes, that are not misquoted, from Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and then using them as the premises of the arguments. What the question lacks are the quotes from representative Christians. Welcome to this site!
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
2
"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being infinite (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.
- So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being infinite.
- If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.
- If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.
- Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being infinite (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.
- So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being infinite.
- If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.
- If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.
- Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
atheism christianity
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
edited 9 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
4,2373938
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
asked 5 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1273
1273
1
Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
5 hours ago
Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
4 hours ago
@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
4 hours ago
1
I upvoted because I think the underlying line of questioning is important, but for this to be relevant to more than atheism one needs to make sure one has not created a straw man. One helps to guarantee one is not creating a straw may by getting quotes, that are not misquoted, from Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and then using them as the premises of the arguments. What the question lacks are the quotes from representative Christians. Welcome to this site!
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
2
"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
1
Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
5 hours ago
Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
4 hours ago
@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
4 hours ago
1
I upvoted because I think the underlying line of questioning is important, but for this to be relevant to more than atheism one needs to make sure one has not created a straw man. One helps to guarantee one is not creating a straw may by getting quotes, that are not misquoted, from Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and then using them as the premises of the arguments. What the question lacks are the quotes from representative Christians. Welcome to this site!
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
2
"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
1 hour ago
1
1
Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
5 hours ago
Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
5 hours ago
Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
4 hours ago
Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
4 hours ago
@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
4 hours ago
@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
4 hours ago
1
1
I upvoted because I think the underlying line of questioning is important, but for this to be relevant to more than atheism one needs to make sure one has not created a straw man. One helps to guarantee one is not creating a straw may by getting quotes, that are not misquoted, from Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and then using them as the premises of the arguments. What the question lacks are the quotes from representative Christians. Welcome to this site!
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
I upvoted because I think the underlying line of questioning is important, but for this to be relevant to more than atheism one needs to make sure one has not created a straw man. One helps to guarantee one is not creating a straw may by getting quotes, that are not misquoted, from Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and then using them as the premises of the arguments. What the question lacks are the quotes from representative Christians. Welcome to this site!
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
2
2
"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
1 hour ago
"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot use words like “each†to describe the “triune godâ€Â. The word “each†implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “partsâ€Â, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute†of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity†to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
1
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.
Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:
Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.
What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.
Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.
Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.
Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.
Reference
Wikipedia, "Straw man argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot use words like “each†to describe the “triune godâ€Â. The word “each†implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “partsâ€Â, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute†of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity†to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
1
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot use words like “each†to describe the “triune godâ€Â. The word “each†implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “partsâ€Â, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute†of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity†to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
1
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You cannot use words like “each†to describe the “triune godâ€Â. The word “each†implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “partsâ€Â, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute†of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity†to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
You cannot use words like “each†to describe the “triune godâ€Â. The word “each†implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “partsâ€Â, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute†of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity†to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
answered 3 hours ago
anonymouswho
348313
348313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
1
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
1
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
3 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
– Josef Klimuk
2 hours ago
1
1
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
From what I understand, the father “begats†the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds†from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten†of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
– anonymouswho
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.
Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:
Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.
What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.
Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.
Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.
Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.
Reference
Wikipedia, "Straw man argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.
Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:
Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.
What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.
Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.
Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.
Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.
Reference
Wikipedia, "Straw man argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.
Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:
Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.
What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.
Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.
Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.
Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.
Reference
Wikipedia, "Straw man argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.
Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:
Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.
What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.
Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.
Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.
Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.
Reference
Wikipedia, "Straw man argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
edited 5 mins ago
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
answered 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2373938
4,2373938
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56237%2fis-being-infinite-of-each-person-of-the-trinity-contradictory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
5 hours ago
Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
4 hours ago
@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
4 hours ago
1
I upvoted because I think the underlying line of questioning is important, but for this to be relevant to more than atheism one needs to make sure one has not created a straw man. One helps to guarantee one is not creating a straw may by getting quotes, that are not misquoted, from Christian philosophers such as Plantinga and then using them as the premises of the arguments. What the question lacks are the quotes from representative Christians. Welcome to this site!
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
2
"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
1 hour ago