Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

Albion said:

Just a minute. It's not the ones who DO understand the doctrine of the Trinity that engage in the pouting and grumping on threads like this one, complaining about not being able to make sense of it.

Click to expand...

You mean the ones who pretend to understand, and whose pretence is based on copious layers of obscurity?

That line's already been tried out on this thread. It didn't work before, either.

Albion said:

That line's already been tried out on this thread. It didn't work before, either.

Click to expand...

The emperor's new clothes are dazzling.

Archaeopteryx said:

The emperor's new clothes are dazzling.

Click to expand...

I wonder if it needs three hats or one for the single-triple heads which hold the single/triple personalities it is supposed to have. Maybe it is a mysterious hat which is both three hats and one at the same time?

KCfromNC said:

I wonder if it needs three hats or one for the single-triple heads which hold the single/triple personalities it is supposed to have. Maybe it is a mysterious hat which is both three hats and one at the same time?

Click to expand...

We can't comment on the emperor's nakedness, errr... garments. We lack the fashion sense apparently.

All the major Christian traditions maintain the doctrine of the Trinity: that God is defined as three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, and yet one in “substance, essence or nature.” They are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial. Each is God, wholly and completely. Despite this, however, the Son was “begotten” of the Father and the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from both.

The Bible contains no express formulation of the Trinity. Instead, it was developed by Christian theologians over several hundred years attempting to explain the perplexing relationship described by the Bible among God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Many biblical passages described God as the only divine being, while others suggested that Jesus was also divine. Some passages appeared to describe Jesus as fully human while others appeared to describe him as a spirit. Some passages suggested the Jesus was created by God while others indicated that Jesus was eternal.

According to theologian Alister McGrath, the doctrine of the Trinity was necessary to harmonize these apparently contradictory passages. The God described throughout the New Testament writings could only be understood in “Trinitarian terms.” In other words, faced with a mishmash of apparently inconsistent biblical claims about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, theologians had to invent a doctrine that appeared to make sense of it all. Thus was born the Trinity.

The Trinity didn’t gel until the fourth century, before which various other solutions were proposed, such as Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person), and Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects). The church leaders of the day, however, ultimately rejected all these, awarding Trinitarianism the brass key as the best of the lot.

From the beginning, it was clear that this was a pretty fuzzy concept. St. Augustine was one of the earliest proponents of the doctrine. But even he acknowledged that it could not be coherently explained. According to Augustine, an explanation was beyond human comprehension, so one simply had to accept it on faith.

Since the fourth century, nothing has changed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Faith defines the Trinity as “a mystery of faith revealed in scripture, historically being deemed unknowable by unaided human reason and not capable of logical demonstration once revealed, being above reason without being incompatible with the principles of rational thought.” In other words, no one has made sense of it to date, and there is no reason to expect that anyone ever will.

This is not to say that many modern apologists haven’t taken a crack at a coherent explanation. You can read many of them online. But I’ll save you some time. They’re all over the place. To say they’ve failed to reach a consensus is a vast understatement. You would be hard pressed to find any significant agreement among them.

And I will ask, if God existed, would he be okay with the fact that all of humanity is hopelessly confused over his very nature – especially when this confusion stands as a roadblock to many accepting his existence? Why would anyone worship a God they have no hope of understanding? And yet God provides no guidance – no intelligible explanation.

To accept the Trinity, we must adopt a position that makes no sense to us. But what justifies us in adopting an incoherent position when a perfectly coherent and plausible one is available? Isn’t it more likely that the entire notion of the Trinity is a hopelessly convoluted, but completely human, attempt to make sense of disparate and unrelated ideas – ideas that were never intended to be read together in the first place?

KCfromNC said:

It more often ends up in something like "since we can never know anything with 100% certainty, anything I make up is just as reasonable as stuff supported by multiple lines of independent objective evidence". I'm not sure that is solipsism as much as a powerful way to rationalize away the uncomfortable parts of reality.

Click to expand...

I don't think most people who argue a similar point purposefully end up with, "Hey, I now believe and accept solipsism," rather I see it as being just one of the destinations along that train's track, typically somewhere near the end. And I don't see many practical reasons to stop at many of those destinations.

KCfromNC said:

Like I said, the whole "it is a mystery thing" is in practice a way to avoid thinking about the fact that this god as believed by actual believers doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

I've never said it is a mystery. The only thing that doesn't make sense about God is that we don't understand His existence. We don't understand something that is eternal. Things are true whether or nor we believe or understand them.

Kirsten said:

Philosophical musings bore me.

Click to expand...

Yet you are participating in such; why is that?

HitchSlap said:

So why post verses from a book some here consider fatuous?

Click to expand...

Things are true whether or not you believe them. Also, did you notice the website you're posting on?

KCfromNC said:

It more often ends up in something like "since we can never know anything with 100% certainty, anything I make up is just as reasonable as stuff supported by multiple lines of independent objective evidence". I'm not sure that is solipsism as much as a powerful way to rationalize away the uncomfortable parts of reality.

Click to expand...

Which parts of reality?

Kirsten said:

Thing are true whether or not your believe them. Also, did you notice the website you're posting on?

Click to expand...

Yes, things are "true," regardless of belief. The point was, why post bible verses as responses to those of us who don't accept their veracity.
Yes, this if CF, and I'm not posting in the "Christian's only" section (and neither are you).

HitchSlap said:

Yes, things are "true," regardless of belief. The point was, why post bible verses as responses to those of us who don't accept their veracity.
Yes, this if CF, and I'm not posting in the "Christian's only" section (and neither are you).

Click to expand...

Because God's word never returns void.

Kirsten said:

Because God's word never returns void.

Click to expand...

Good for you.

HitchSlap said:

Good for you.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with me.

Kirsten said:

It has nothing to do with me.

Click to expand...

Way to pass the buck.

Good for you.

HitchSlap said:

Way to pass the buck.

Good for you.

Click to expand...

I have no power. If I quote God's word, it's Him speaking, not me. You don't have to like it.

Kirsten said:

I have no power. If I quote God's word, it's Him speaking, not me. You don't have to like it.

Click to expand...

You're quoting from an old book written by men, most of them unknown.

If you choose to believe these are the words of a god/s, then that's on you. But you really shouldn't expect others to accept your assertions at face value. In fact, you should be glad I'm pointing out facts to you, because if you'r right, you should be able to demonstrate this in an objective, independently verifiable way.

You're quoting from an old book written by men, most of them unknown.

Click to expand...

Inspired by God in which most prophetic words contained therein have come to pass.

If you choose to believe these are the words of a god/s, then that's on you. But you really shouldn't expect others to accept your assertions at face value. In fact, you should be glad I'm pointing out facts to you, because if you'r right, you should be able to demonstrate this in an objective, independently verifiable way.

Click to expand...

Many people reject God's word but ultimately, it will never return void because His word is more powerful than anything you or I can possible imagine.

Kirsten said:

I've never said it is a mystery. The only thing that doesn't make sense about God is that we don't understand His existence.

Click to expand...

"Something we don't understand" is one of the definitions of a mystery.