Mixing
Is being omnipresent of each person of the Trinity contradictory?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being omnipresent (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 omnipresent.
- 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 omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being omnipresent (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 omnipresent.
- 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 omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
3
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
15 hours ago
1
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
14 hours ago
1
@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
14 hours ago
7
"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
11 hours ago
2
@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human†essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate†human. That analogy implies there is a “god†substance and three “things†share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being omnipresent (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 omnipresent.
- 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 omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
- Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.
- Being omnipresent (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 omnipresent.
- 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 omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.
atheism christianity
atheism christianity
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
edited 21 mins ago
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
asked 15 hours ago
Josef Klimuk
1354
1354
3
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
15 hours ago
1
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
14 hours ago
1
@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
14 hours ago
7
"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
11 hours ago
2
@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human†essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate†human. That analogy implies there is a “god†substance and three “things†share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 12 more comments
3
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
15 hours ago
1
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
14 hours ago
1
@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
14 hours ago
7
"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
11 hours ago
2
@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human†essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate†human. That analogy implies there is a “god†substance and three “things†share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago
3
3
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
15 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
15 hours ago
1
1
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
14 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
14 hours ago
1
1
@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
14 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
14 hours ago
7
7
"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
11 hours 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
11 hours ago
2
2
@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human†essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate†human. That analogy implies there is a “god†substance and three “things†share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago
@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human†essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate†human. That analogy implies there is a “god†substance and three “things†share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago
 |Â
show 12 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
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 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
1
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 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
12 hours ago
2
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
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
3
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"
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Your proof is valid.
Here's an analogy:
Assume the observable universe is infinite.
Define infinite to mean contains everything.
If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
contain everything; it is not infinite.
Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.
Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.
1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
1
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
"Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."
Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.
Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.
There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
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 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
1
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 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
12 hours ago
2
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
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
4
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 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
1
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 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
12 hours ago
2
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
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
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 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
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 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
answered 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
answered 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
answered 13 hours ago
anonymouswho
368313
368313
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
1
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 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
12 hours ago
2
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
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
1
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 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
12 hours ago
2
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
12 hours ago
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
1
1
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
@JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
– anonymouswho
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 hours ago
Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
– Josef Klimuk
13 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
12 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
12 hours ago
2
2
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
12 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
12 hours ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
3
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"
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
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"
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
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"
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
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"
Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
edited 59 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
1092
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
answered 12 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
4,2573938
4,2573938
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Your proof is valid.
Here's an analogy:
Assume the observable universe is infinite.
Define infinite to mean contains everything.
If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
contain everything; it is not infinite.
Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.
Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.
1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
1
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Your proof is valid.
Here's an analogy:
Assume the observable universe is infinite.
Define infinite to mean contains everything.
If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
contain everything; it is not infinite.
Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.
Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.
1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
1
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Your proof is valid.
Here's an analogy:
Assume the observable universe is infinite.
Define infinite to mean contains everything.
If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
contain everything; it is not infinite.
Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.
Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.
1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Your proof is valid.
Here's an analogy:
Assume the observable universe is infinite.
Define infinite to mean contains everything.
If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
contain everything; it is not infinite.
Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.
Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.
1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
edited 50 mins ago
Andrew T.
1092
1092
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
answered 4 hours ago
Words Like Jared
1314
1314
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
1
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
1
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
1
1
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
– Frank Hubeny
3 hours ago
1
1
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
@FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
– Words Like Jared
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
Thank you! That helps me get more information.
– Frank Hubeny
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
"Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."
Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.
Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
"Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."
Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.
Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
"Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."
Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.
Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
"Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."
Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.
Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
answered 6 hours ago
Joshua
30615
30615
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.
There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.
There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.
There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.
There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
answered 2 hours ago
curiousdannii
277311
277311
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-omnipresent-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
3
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
15 hours ago
1
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
14 hours ago
1
@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
14 hours ago
7
"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
11 hours ago
2
@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human†essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate†human. That analogy implies there is a “god†substance and three “things†share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago