Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

If "god" is just a word without a definition it has no meaning. Consequently, "god exists" has no meaning, either.
I would have no problems agreeing that "god exists" since I can define the word as whatever I wish to define it as.


Sure does. It has a definition, after all.

Doesn´t really matter but:
No. There is only one pen next to me on my desktop.


No, I don´t think that this is how it works. I think that first there is a concept, then we give it a name. At least that´s how it works for me.


"In the end"..."you start with names"???
That doesn´t make sense to me.
Personally, I experience myself starting with concepts/ideas, and then possibly give them names.

But ok, when you think philosophical systems start with words/names without properties and definitions and throwing out a word already functions as an axiom, you shouldn´t have any problems answering the following question straightforward:
Do you or don´t you agree with/accept the axiom that Zisensontar exists?

If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument. Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.

I have a feeling that this understanding could be personality related. I tend to accept things until I know it is false. I feel you go the other way.

 

[juvenissun]

Since I know that there are denominations in Christianity that do not share your concept of a personal, intentionally acting, purpose/meaning-giving, authoritative God, my rejection of the axiom that there is a predetermined/inherent meaning/purpose to my/our existence/life (or life/existence as a general concept) wouldn´t even necessarily preclude me from being a Christian.

So what does it go after for?

May I know which Christian denomination(s) you referred to? This is important to me.

I did not describe the Christianity because this OP assumes that people know something about it. The purpose is not to convince people, but is to seek good opinions of opposition. You may not interested in what I believe, but I am interested in your criticism of Christianity.

We CAN NOT make up, in theory or in practice, a perfect system about human, no matter how many axioms are introduced (the Utopian society is NOT perfect). You tell me a perfect system about human, and I can pick out its problems quite easily. Again, the perfect here means that the system has internal, logically consistent, answer to all possible questions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You must have something first, so you can reason if you want to believe it.

That's backwards. You could never use your brain in the first place to come up with an axiom without prior acts of reasoning. You can never "have something [an axiom] first" in order to reason. You could not even understand the need for axioms using your approach.

All you can do is consider your life experience, and ask yourself what axioms are needed to make sense of those experiences.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

That's backwards. You could never use your brain in the first place to come up with an axiom without prior acts of reasoning. You can never "have something [an axiom] first" in order to reason. You could not even understand the need for axioms using your approach.

All you can do is consider your life experience, and ask yourself what axioms are needed to make sense of those experiences.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Good, and I do not know how to argue with that.

But, assume your are right, how would that affect the system of Christianity? We discovered problems, then there is something called Christianity which has the axiom of "God Exists" and is able to answer the problems perfectly.

 

[quatona]

If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument. Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.

I have a feeling that this understanding could be personality related. I tend to accept things until I know it is false. I feel you go the other way.

Twice "no".
1. I have no problem whatsoever to deal with a hypothetical, or to assume that a statement is correct for the sake of the argument. Au contraire, I think this is a valid and productive way of investigating the accuracy of a statement. E.g. it´s the first step of a "reductio ad absurdum". I use this approach all the time, and if you look back you will find that I have done that several times in this thread.
2. This is not the point or problem we have been discussing, anyway. The question we have been discussing was: What makes an axiom, and my position is: An empty word doesn´t make an axiom. An idea/concept (whether it is labeled or not) does.

What indeed I find myself unable to do is:
Agreeing or disagreeing (or being anything but indifferent towards) a verbal construction in which the keyword is undefined.

Such a verbal construction isn´t a (substantiated or unsubstantiated) statement, it isn´t accurate or inaccurate, it isn´t a theory, it isn´t a hypothesis, it isn´t an axiom, it isn´t even nonsense. It´s nothing but an empty verbal shell. I am unable to have an opinion about the accuracy of its content - because it doesn´t contain anything.

If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument.

Well, unfortunately I don´t know what Zisensontar is supposed to be, either, and I have no argument.
I just brought it up because your position was that a verbal construction is an axiom already at a point when there isn´t even a definition to its keyword.

Furthermore, you said that from such an "axiom" everything else followed logically and necessarily. Now, you were the one who agreed with the "axiom" I quoted, so it´s up to you to show what follows logically and necessarily from this verbal construction.

Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.

BINGO.
Exactly my point.
Even worse, it could not even be anything but a an empty word (i.e. not even a symbol).
Nothing follows logically and necessarily from the verbal construction "Zisensontar exists" because at this point "Zisensontar" has no idea/concept attached to it. It isn´t a statement, it isn´t an axiom.
Likewise, the verbal construction "God exists" (as long as "God" is an empty word without a concept/idea attached to it) isn´t an axiom and not even a statement. Nothing follows from it logically or necessarily.
An axiom is a concept, not a word. A word without meaning attached to it doesn´t allow for an axiom.

What I am trying to show you is that you have it backwards. Nobody needs a word like "Zisensontar" or "God", unless they want to communicate a concept/idea. The idea/concept is first.

Examples:
a. someone has the axiomatic idea that the universe must be created, hence there must be a creator entity, which he will call "God".
b. someone feels that morality is unsatisfactory when it is subject to subjective opinion. Hence he axiomatically creates the concept of a supernatural moral authority, which he may call "God".
c. someone feels that there should be an "objective" meaning/purpose to existence. Hence he will axiomatically assume a supernatural authoritative purpose-giver.

None of these properties (creator entity, moral authority, authority on the purpose of existence) follows naturally, necessarily or logically (or at all) from forming a word (be it "Zisensontar" or "God").
The assumed properties are the axiomatic assumptions.

 

[quatona]

May I know which Christian denomination(s) you referred to? This is important to me.

If I remember correctly they e.g. have "Universalists" or "Unitiarian" in their name.
Just for a personal feedback:
I have become a little hesitant to take your claim that something is "important to you" overly seriously. Last time (when you said it was important to you to know what purposes I personally give to my life, made that question very urgent and got a little pushy about it) you later simply ignored my answer and moved on.

did not describe the Christianity because this OP assumes that people know something about it.

How could I possibly know what your idea/concept/brand of Christianity is?

The purpose is not to convince people, but is to seek good opinions of opposition.

Again, allow me a little bit of feedback:
I don´t perceive you as proselytizing or something.
However, when you make the claim that "Christianity is a perfect philosophical system" I sure would like to know - before engaging in any discussion - which particular Christian philosophy you hold and are referring to.

Then again, I am not in opposition to the claim you are seeking opposition to ("Christianity is a perfect philosophical system once you have accepted its axioms"). In fact, I think that this is true for any philosophical system.

You may not interested in what I believe, but I am interested in your criticism of Christianity.

That´s a bit odd a response to my statement that I first would have to know what exactly you believe before I am even entertaining the idea of criticizing your beliefs.

We CAN NOT make up, in theory or in practice, a perfect system about human, no matter how many axioms are introduced (the Utopian society is NOT perfect).

Yes, we can - if only we demand everyone to accept the unnecessary assumptions that it is founded upon.

You tell me a perfect system about human, and I can pick out its problems quite easily.

Not if you first have to agree that you will accept its unnecessary assumptions.
Personally, I would also claim that I can pick out the problems of the main doctrines presented by Christians - in my experience, though, Christians don´t perceive them as problems. I guess it´s the same vice versa.

Again, the perfect here means that the system has internal, logically consistent, answer to all possible questions.

Well, in the development of this thread it has become clear that you have no answers to all possible questions, but instead reserve the right to shoot them down or evade answering them in a straightforward manner when they are conflicting with the paradigms and axioms underlying your beliefs.

 

[quatona]

If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?

Depends on what exactly you wish to hear an argument against.
E.g. I would agree with Mark´s objection that Christianity isn´t a philosophical system, in the first place.

What is perfect? I think you may say that it is something you, or anyone else, can not find anything wrong with it. For example, I can say that something is wrong with Buddhism, or with Islam. Then neither of them is a perfect philosophical system.

Well, this would be a pretty easy requirement to meet.
There are billions who find something wrong with Christianity, and according to your criteria this fact renders it a not perfect philosophical system. Case closed.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There are two steps in that short premise: An axiom and believe it.

You must have something first, so you can reason if you want to believe it.

So, the first thing set in Christian philosophy is: let there be God. If later on we feel this axiom is not needed, then we can consider to delete it.

Except that's not a premise in full, it's the first half of an if/then premise, if I understand logic at all. Then again, an if/then statement can serve as an argument in itself, albeit a flawed one, since it just has the inference of if A, then B, which of course would only be justified if we also demonstrated that A is actually true. Believing an axiom is so demonstrable that it borders on absurdity to say the opposite.

Of course we believe in axioms, it's answering the question of why those axioms are useful that is difficult. The axiom, "God exists" is not unique to Christianity, as opposed to the axiom, "God is three in one", which is something that follows from an axiom fundamental to any theistic religion/system/philosophy in general. So it's not just that the Christian axioms are disputed, but the axioms common to all theistic philosophies that are unfalsifiable. Why would christianity ever feel the need to remove the axiom "God exists"? Especially if later axioms of that belief are contingent on the holding of the first axiom just mentioned.

 

[juvenissun]

If you say it exists, then I accept it for the moment. Then I want to see the definition/argument. Zisensontar is just a symbol (a name space). It could be anything.


Twice "no".
1. I have no problem whatsoever to deal with a hypothetical, or to assume that a statement is correct for the sake of the argument. Au contraire, I think this is a valid and productive way of investigating the accuracy of a statement. E.g. it´s the first step of a "reductio ad absurdum". I use this approach all the time, and if you look back you will find that I have done that several times in this thread.
2. This is not the point or problem we have been discussing, anyway. The question we have been discussing was: What makes an axiom, and my position is: An empty word doesn´t make an axiom. An idea/concept (whether it is labeled or not) does.

What indeed I find myself unable to do is:
Agreeing or disagreeing (or being anything but indifferent towards) a verbal construction in which the keyword is undefined.

Such a verbal construction isn´t a (substantiated or unsubstantiated) statement, it isn´t accurate or inaccurate, it isn´t a theory, it isn´t a hypothesis, it isn´t an axiom, it isn´t even nonsense. It´s nothing but an empty verbal shell. I am unable to have an opinion about the accuracy of its content - because it doesn´t contain anything.


Well, unfortunately I don´t know what Zisensontar is supposed to be, either, and I have no argument.
I just brought it up because your position was that a verbal construction is an axiom already at a point when there isn´t even a definition to its keyword.

Furthermore, you said that from such an "axiom" everything else followed logically and necessarily. Now, you were the one who agreed with the "axiom" I quoted, so it´s up to you to show what follows logically and necessarily from this verbal construction.

BINGO.
Exactly my point.
Even worse, it could not even be anything but a an empty word (i.e. not even a symbol).
Nothing follows logically and necessarily from the verbal construction "Zisensontar exists" because at this point "Zisensontar" has no idea/concept attached to it. It isn´t a statement, it isn´t an axiom.
Likewise, the verbal construction "God exists" (as long as "God" is an empty word without a concept/idea attached to it) isn´t an axiom and not even a statement. Nothing follows from it logically or necessarily.
An axiom is a concept, not a word. A word without meaning attached to it doesn´t allow for an axiom.

What I am trying to show you is that you have it backwards. Nobody needs a word like "Zisensontar" or "God", unless they want to communicate a concept/idea. The idea/concept is first.

Examples:
a. someone has the axiomatic idea that the universe must be created, hence there must be a creator entity, which he will call "God".
b. someone feels that morality is unsatisfactory when it is subject to subjective opinion. Hence he axiomatically creates the concept of a supernatural moral authority, which he may call "God".
c. someone feels that there should be an "objective" meaning/purpose to existence. Hence he will axiomatically assume a supernatural authoritative purpose-giver.

None of these properties (creator entity, moral authority, authority on the purpose of existence) follows naturally, necessarily or logically (or at all) from forming a word (be it "Zisensontar" or "God").
The assumed properties are the axiomatic assumptions.

I got it. Thanks for spending so much time to explain. I guess you are right on this so-calle axiom argument.

So "God exists" is not an axiom unless God is roughly defined first. I agree. In fact, as I review what I said, I did use expression:

God = functions (parameter1, parameter2, ...)

Except I thought those parameters could be added at later time. Indeed, God is a name space and is empty until those parameters and functions are filled. I might make an inaccurate argument. But I do have the right idea.

I will tentatively assign two characters to God at the beginning: 1. supernatural; 2. authoritative. Then I say, such a being called God, which exist. (in fact, if you read the story that Jacob wrestled with a stranger in Genesis, that is exactly what God was to Jacob until he knew Him better at later time)

Would that be a good axiom? If such an axiom is introduced into a philosophy, then it becomes theology. Well, may be this would render Buddhism not to be a theology, just a philosophy.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The issue with Buddhism is that there is such a thing as atheology in academic discourse, from what I understand. With Buddhism as an atheology, it would mean it talks about deities and gods as if they are unimportant, and even in some cases, nonexistent because of the particular nature of Buddhism. Though most traditional Buddhists would not outright deny the existence of deities, but only their importance/relevance to attaining enlightenment, nirvana, etc.

 

[juvenissun]

If I remember correctly they e.g. have "Universalists" or "Unitiarian" in their name.
Just for a personal feedback:
I have become a little hesitant to take your claim that something is "important to you" overly seriously. Last time (when you said it was important to you to know what purposes I personally give to my life, made that question very urgent and got a little pushy about it) you later simply ignored my answer and moved on.

Sorry for that. I thought about what should I do to what you said.

One possibility is that I start a discussion on your idea, most likely argue against it. Or, I just take a note of it. The "purpose of life" as you described it is, in fact, not a surprise (or new) to me. One criticism I would give immediately is that it is too "narrow", in both domain and duration. One question I could ask you in response was: do you believe life after life? According to my understanding from your statement, the answer seems to be negative. I was not trying to get into that debate, so I shut up.

No response does not mean no thought. In fact, it could be a thoughtful reaction. I am glad you did not let it go. Now you know. If you like to talk about it more, we can do that.

I am also interested in what Christian cults said. Two major ones I am familiar with are Jehovah Witnesses, and the Mormon. The Unitarian Church to me is simply a joke. They do not know which one to choose, so they put all gods together into one theology. That bounds to have numerous flaws (logic contradictions). So I did not even spend time to know its fragmented doctrine. In fact, I treat them as a political group.

I say something could be "important" to me, means something you said may be "new" to me, particularly in Christian theology. There is not much news attracted to me any more in my life. Usually, I have to discover new things by myself. This thread is posted with such a purpose.

 

[juvenissun]

Personally, I would also claim that I can pick out the problems of the main doctrines presented by Christians - in my experience, though, Christians don´t perceive them as problems. I guess it´s the same vice versa.
Well, in the development of this thread it has become clear that you have no answers to all possible questions, but instead reserve the right to shoot them down or evade answering them in a straightforward manner when they are conflicting with the paradigms and axioms underlying your beliefs.

I eagerly expect what your question would be. That is what I want at the first place.

I try to examine Christian doctrine very objectively. It is a major reason that I am so impressed by Christianity because it not only passed all my very strict scrutiny, but it continuously surprises me with new insights I have never thought of.

 

[juvenissun]

Depends on what exactly you wish to hear an argument against.
E.g. I would agree with Mark´s objection that Christianity isn´t a philosophical system, in the first place.


Well, this would be a pretty easy requirement to meet.
There are billions who find something wrong with Christianity, and according to your criteria this fact renders it a not perfect philosophical system. Case closed.

No. you still do not understand the OP.

I say: there are questions which Islam or Buddhism or any other philosophy do not answer. Not having a right or wrong answer, but having NO ANSWER.

You may ask Christianity simply question as why? why? and why? There will be an answer in Christian doctrine to the whys at any level until you hit the definition. I would like you to try.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Just because it doesn't have an answer that people find conclusive doesn't mean it doesn't have an implicit answer in the sense of, "The answer is that there is no answer" or "The answer is that the question is unimportant". Just because it's not a discursive conclusive answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer in some practical pragmatic sense

 

[juvenissun]

The issue with Buddhism is that there is such a thing as atheology in academic discourse, from what I understand. With Buddhism as an atheology, it would mean it talks about deities and gods as if they are unimportant, and even in some cases, nonexistent because of the particular nature of Buddhism. Though most traditional Buddhists would not outright deny the existence of deities, but only their importance/relevance to attaining enlightenment, nirvana, etc.

What Buddhism confused me at the first place is that it seems the "orthodox" Buddhism does not say anything about god. However, it does imply god. And some other branches obviously say there are gods at where when one escaped the cycle of reincarnation. Theology or Atheology, it is very confusing. When I ask question about what the situation would be after physical death (the myth of reincarnation)? The answer I got is: "we do not talk about it", "It is not important."

It does not make sense. Either there is no life after life, or it is a very very important matter. Buddhism says: the life after this life is "not important". If it is not important, then why shouldn't I kill and eat a chicken? If a chicken is somebody's reincarnated life, then it is VERY important. If I reincarnated into a chicken and then got killed, where would I ended up? I have to worry about this because there are too many chicken around today.

In contrast, Christianity has a very satisfactory answer to this problem. A chicken is a chicken. If it got killed, then the life just vanished and the material is recycled. A human is never a chicken at any time.

 

[juvenissun]

Except that's not a premise in full, it's the first half of an if/then premise, if I understand logic at all. Then again, an if/then statement can serve as an argument in itself, albeit a flawed one, since it just has the inference of if A, then B, which of course would only be justified if we also demonstrated that A is actually true. Believing an axiom is so demonstrable that it borders on absurdity to say the opposite.

Of course we believe in axioms, it's answering the question of why those axioms are useful that is difficult. The axiom, "God exists" is not unique to Christianity, as opposed to the axiom, "God is three in one", which is something that follows from an axiom fundamental to any theistic religion/system/philosophy in general. So it's not just that the Christian axioms are disputed, but the axioms common to all theistic philosophies that are unfalsifiable. Why would christianity ever feel the need to remove the axiom "God exists"? Especially if later axioms of that belief are contingent on the holding of the first axiom just mentioned.

Trinity is not an axiom. It is a logic necessity (or consequence) based on what God intends to do (or has done). It is derived from our understanding to Christian doctrine. We do not know how does it work, but it has to be that way. It is a consequence, not a presumption.

 

[juvenissun]

Just because it doesn't have an answer that people find conclusive doesn't mean it doesn't have an implicit answer in the sense of, "The answer is that there is no answer" or "The answer is that the question is unimportant". Just because it's not a discursive conclusive answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer in some practical pragmatic sense

Then we have to reason if it is important or not important. This discussion is also avoid.

It we do not need to talk about something, then I want to know why is there no need to talk about it. What can you say?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

What Buddhism confused me at the first place is that it seems the "orthodox" Buddhism does not say anything about god. However, it does imply god. And some other branches obviously say there are gods at where when one escaped the cycle of reincarnation. Theology or Atheology, it is very confusing. When I ask question about what the situation would be after physical death (the myth of reincarnation)? The answer I got is: "we do not talk about it", "It is not important."

Implying god doesn't mean they think that God will help them achieve nirvana. I can't say i've heard any Buddhist say there are gods in nirvana or that there is some state of nirvana, since it's more accurate to say nirvana is samsara and vice versa. That seems like a paradox, but it doesn't mean it's a contradiction.

You're asking a different question than theology when you ask about the afterlife. I wouldn't call reincarnation a myth, nor would I call reincarnation the type of afterlife philosophy involved in Buddhism. More accurately, it's rebirth. When someone is reborn, it isn't them that is reborn in the sense of their soul transmigrating to another body, but just the constituents of their dynamic existence from one moment to the next. In short, I am not reincarnated so much as reborn. But even that has issues in the english, so it's not unusual that Buddhism wouldn't want to talk about it, because it's a matter of a bit of a language barrier between the Eastern languages and Western languages, if you will. Not to mention it won't speed up the process if someone tries to explain enlightenment or reincarnation to you logically. If I use the example of a flame transferring over many candles, would that help?

It does not make sense. Either there is no life after life, or it is a very very important matter. Buddhism says: the life after this life is "not important". If it is not important, then why shouldn't I kill and eat a chicken? If a chicken is somebody's reincarnated life, then it is VERY important. If I reincarnated into a chicken and then got killed, where would I ended up? I have to worry about this because there are too many chicken around today.

It's not so simple as the binary dichotomy you're creating. What about at least a third possibility or four? Maybe there is an afterlife and we can know about it, Maybe there is an afterlife and we can't know about it.

You seem to be thinking Buddhists believe that there is some soul transmitted through rebirth/reincarnation, when that isn't the case. When my cat dies and is reborn into a chicken, for example, that doesn't mean I should treat it as my cat. It's a chicken, in terms of BUddhist metaphysics, but even that will change eventually. It will inevitably die and be reborn again in some sense. You seem to want some overarching and comprehensive answer and metaphysics to the process of rebirth/reincarnation, when that's not as important as the psychological insight that you can gain in seeing that your own life is not necessarily so different from another's life. You'll both die and then the future will be unknown.

If I had to answer, I would simply say that your rebirth into a chicken indicates something about your karma in general. Although this isn't to say that you deserved it, it simply is a consequence of you behaving in a way that you are reborn as a chicken. perhaps if you behave well as a chicken, you may be reborn as a human again. Of course, this is in a Theravadan context, whereas Zen as far as i can tell, puts less emphasis on theories about rebirth/reincarnation and such and simply emphasizes practice of meditation and such in order to have you spontaneously realize those things without the need for a myopic focus on logical explanations.

In contrast, Christianity has a very satisfactory answer to this problem. A chicken is a chicken. If it got killed, then the life just vanished and the material is recycled. A human is never a chicken at any time

If the material is recycled, that's not too dissimilar from rebirth in the sense of the karmic constituents. The chicken has biological matter, it has something of a experiential mind, albeit on the level of an animal with a brain the size of a walnut probably, eating chicken feed and making clucking sounds, etc. The chicken has sensations of pain, the chicken has habits, and the chicken might be said to have some degree of discernment, albeit again on an animal level. But again, to get into excessive theoretical prickling seems to miss the point entirely about Buddhism. It's not something that focuses on a comprehensive philosophy of everything, but moreso practical answers to everyday questions, everyday experiences.

People suffer, people want some answer to it, like why it happened. Sometimes, not knowing why something happened is just inevitable. A tsunami or earthquake just happens, we can't stop it when it happens. But not everyone has a disposition to realize that the problems they see are not always something they are entirely responsible for. To say we are entirely responsible for everything that happens to us is absurd, but to say we are not responsible at all for everything that happens to us is equally absurd.

There are middle grounds to this, though Christianity seems to lean towards saying we are responsible indirectly for many things that happen to us in that we are not truly faithful in God and don't trust in its plan. Buddhism suggests moreso that our problems are mental and psychological in many instances. I don't initially see my breaking my arm twice as anything good, but it is good in that I learned to be more careful. Even bad experiences can have good results if we learn from them and see something new about existence in our experience of those things, such as losing a pet, getting rejected by literary magazines or feeling frustration at people.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Then we have to reason if it is important or not important. This discussion is also avoid.

It we do not need to talk about something, then I want to know why is there no need to talk about it. What can you say?

Importance seems to hinge on practical concerns. If we answer a question about language, is it important to people? If we answer a question about ethics or morality, is it important to people? If we answer a question about ontological empiricism, is it important to people? of course, there's a difficulty in determining what is overall important to people as opposed to particularly important to people. Not everyone cares about the arts as much as some do about the sciences and vice versa. But everyone considers ethical problems and such things as how we come to believe what we believe about things.

The reason I don't care about cosmogony or eschatology or soteriology is because those things, for the most part, just muddle up things and only make our thinking less clear about the things that are more important, like issues of ethics and application of ethics.

Interpersonal issues seem more important than overly academic issues that most people will not care about or even think about most of the time. Admittedly we will need general ideas about epistemology, logic and metaphysics, but only to the extent that we don't lose ourselves in speculation and contemplation to the loss of application and actively practicing the philosophical path.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Trinity is not an axiom. It is a logic necessity (or consequence) based on what God intends to do (or has done). It is derived from our understanding to Christian doctrine. We do not know how does it work, but it has to be that way. It is a consequence, not a presumption.

Trinity is an axiom in that you believe that in order to make sense of the rest of your system. It's part of the most common Christian creed, which is, if I remember right, part of the rules as determines what a "true Christian" is. So that seems to be a clear axiom of the Christin system, so as to distinguish it from Judaism or Islam. They both hold the axiom fundamental to theistic religion that "God exists", but you need further axioms to justify the beliefs particular to your religious philosophy, like "God is Trinity/Triune" or "God is personal".

If you don't know how it works, but it has to be that way, then you've pretty much defined an axiom. Christian axioms, like many religious axioms, as opposed to philosophical axioms, however, are more mysterious and cryptic than genuinely axiomatic in that they have some explanation for themselves, at least on a practical level. With these mysterious "axioms" you posit, they aren't explained. In fact, any of your arguments, if they were seen as a valid proof of God, would render their status as axioms void.

Axioms are a priori, before the facts we observe, whereas premises and the like are a posteriori, after the fact. Perhaps God as Trinity is a posteriori, in the sense that you think God's trinity can be observed after the fact of your axiomatic a priori belief that God exists. But then that's just creating more problems, because philosophically, you can't use your holy text to prove this. in order to be a defensible premise, you have to be able to demonstrate in some way that it is true from basic facts we can observe. But how can you observe god is trinity without recourse to the Bible?