nature of God under scrutiny

[randomman]

Let us first agree on what we mean by All-Sufficient, All-Mighty, All-Glorious ... etc We mean by this that there is not a more sufficient, a mightier, or a more glorious than the All-Sufficient, All-Mighty, or All-Glorious. For instance, there is not a number (eg. 2xinfinity) that is greater than infinity. If there was, then infinity would be that number. Likewise, All-Sufficient is infinitely sufficient, All-Mighty is infinitely mighty, and All-Glorious is infinitely glorious.


Now let us list two natures of God:

one-in-one God vs three-in-one God​

Which of the two reflects a more sufficient, more mightier, and more glorious God? Because God must be that nature as we agreed above. And more particularly I refer to the last verse: Which is better, a number of gods making One God or the One All-Glorious All-Mighty God?

This is a very interesting philosophical question.

 

[randomman]

any ideas please? i am really interested in different opinions.

my opinion is one-in-one as expected since i am a muslim

can anyone give a logical answer as to why it should be three-in-one (trinity)

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Meh, your argument is one sided in the fact that it is created on the basis of your ideology of god to be > then that of the christian ideology. It is a one sided argument, and neither does it hold any claim to have logical evidence to support itself. Unless you can position yourself on the basis of actual thought provoking logical reasoning(i.e a priori of your ideology) then this is not a philosophy question at all. But a deliberate, covered up attack upon christian ideology, and thus remains with the field of dogmatic theology.

 

[Blackguard_]

Which is better, a number of gods making One God or the One All-Glorious All-Mighty God?

You misunderstand the Trinity. It is not 3 parts adding up to one God, the 3 persons are all God in and of themselves. A better way to look at it is that it's God being 3 things at once.

I don't think either is better. He's all-mighty/sufficient/glorious/etc. as you say, so what does it matter if he's a Unity or an Infinity? Actually, God is something of an Infinity when you consider that he is omni-present.

Meh, your argument is one sided in the fact that it is created on the basis of your ideology of god to be > then that of the christian ideology

This is true. Both Gods being 0mni-max, it's not like one side can say "my God can beat up your God". The Mohomeddans just prefer a simpler God for some reason.


So OP, how is a Unity inherently better than a Trinity?

 

[peter22]

The greatest miracle God could perform would be of non-existence surely?

 

[stranger]

The mistake here is not simply being too literal , but assuming that God has a 'nature' constrained by words which derive fro His creation...

The bible makes clear this error , but one cannot by any means explain it to those who live in a world of words that they consider exct reflections of reality [ignoring the immense approximations, simplifications, and downright mistakes of ommission in all models constructed by men ... what then of those who try to construct models of God and then try to manipulate them to induce a 'proof' about the spirit without knowing anything about the spirit ?

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That is not to say that God will not expain all truth to all men, on the contrary, He has promised to do so -Joel 2:28, John 16:13

It is simply that men will not wait to judge God according to what He has said . men are by nature impatient, a property God uses very extensively, butit does mean that most men will not understand God in this life , God requires that... still those with enough wit can pull religion apart very easily and uncover its false doctrines... his is quite valid, but the conclusion that God is found in divided religion is not even logical, let alone true... why do people not notice that divided religion simply cannot be ONE truth of God, it is elementary proof that religion is almost completely false ... one can blame God for not telling men all truth now, but the scripture explains why that would be foolish, God simply has a plan which He explains and which explains the state of ignorance of mankind as necessary... oe can believe it since it explains all things in heaven and earth, or one can wait to have it explained by God , but the proof only comes in its realisation and one would have to study the signs in scripture to get that progressively more comprehensive proof... religion does not do this , but invents its own stories, private interpreations which by their diversity prove their falseness which scripture also asserts :-
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Thus one can either follow the signs and see prophecy unfold, or wait for God to explain it all personally to all men... but there will be scoffers who refuse to look at the prophecies and see the signs, scripture again identifies that this must be too...

and despite what religion teaches, there is no advantage whatsoever in leaing into faith in this or that doctrine of men , God will teach all men Himself, no leap of faith is required except by man-made religion [and of course also by men's 'science' which also is purely relative] ...

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[Jesus]

 

[randomman]

thank you for the opinions. i will read them carefully when i have time.

further, please refer to me as a muslim. there is no such thing as "Mohomeddans"

 

[randomman]

Meh, your argument is one sided in the fact that it is created on the basis of your ideology of god to be > then that of the christian ideology. It is a one sided argument, and neither does it hold any claim to have logical evidence to support itself. Unless you can position yourself on the basis of actual thought provoking logical reasoning(i.e a priori of your ideology) then this is not a philosophy question at all. But a deliberate, covered up attack upon christian ideology, and thus remains with the field of dogmatic theology.

how is the argument one sided? i am comparing two forms of God from neutral point of view, regardless of my personal conclusion.

it is not a covered up attack or conspiracy. do not expect me to agree with you. my profile clearly says i am a muslim.

and it is not dogam at all. muslims and christians agree (or assume) God exists and that he is omnipotent and all-sufficient. so let us debate which form is greater for God to present himself as: one-in-one or three-in-one

 

[randomman]

You misunderstand the Trinity. It is not 3 parts adding up to one God, the 3 persons are all God in and of themselves. A better way to look at it is that it's God being 3 things at once.

This makes God not All-Sufficient. One is enough.

I don't think either is better. He's all-mighty/sufficient/glorious/etc. as you say, so what does it matter if he's a Unity or an Infinity? Actually, God is something of an Infinity when you consider that he is omni-present.

I believe God is not going to do something that would make him any less great, sufficient, mighty ... .etc. I see three-in-one makes God less great if he can be one-in-one.

This is true. Both Gods being 0mni-max, it's not like one side can say "my God can beat up your God". The Mohomeddans just prefer a simpler God for some reason.

there is only one God, the Creator of this universe. there are no two God to compete. I am debating two forms of God where God would assume the greatest form. one-in-one is not simpler than three-in-one. it is greater than three-in-one. this is what we are debating here.

So OP, how is a Unity inherently better than a Trinity?

[/quote]

exactly what we are debating

for a start, it makes God less than All-Sufficient All-Mighty to have two extra of himself beside him whether or not they are in harmony or different form

 

[elman]

Let us first agree on what we mean by All-Sufficient, All-Mighty, All-Glorious ... etc We mean by this that there is not a more sufficient, a mightier, or a more glorious than the All-Sufficient, All-Mighty, or All-Glorious. For instance, there is not a number (eg. 2xinfinity) that is greater than infinity. If there was, then infinity would be that number. Likewise, All-Sufficient is infinitely sufficient, All-Mighty is infinitely mighty, and All-Glorious is infinitely glorious.


Now let us list two natures of God:

one-in-one God vs three-in-one God​

Which of the two reflects a more sufficient, more mightier, and more glorious God? Because God must be that nature as we agreed above. And more particularly I refer to the last verse: Which is better, a number of gods making One God or the One All-Glorious All-Mighty God?

This is a very interesting philosophical question.

I don't see that as talking about the nature of God. The nature of God is to be loving.

 

[randomman]

The mistake here is not simply being too literal , but assuming that God has a 'nature' constrained by words which derive fro His creation...

this is why we use terms such as omnipresent, omnipotent, All-Sufficient, All-Merciful, Ever-lastig ... etc

The bible makes clear this error , but one cannot by any means explain it to those who live in a world of words that they consider exct reflections of reality [ignoring the immense approximations, simplifications, and downright mistakes of ommission in all models constructed by men ... what then of those who try to construct models of God and then try to manipulate them to induce a 'proof' about the spirit without knowing anything about the spirit ?

like trinity being a model of God. whereas in islam there is no model for God. He is One, No partners, No family, All-Sufficient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent. Very abstract definition of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
That is not to say that God will not expain all truth to all men, on the contrary, He has promised to do so -Joel 2:28, John 16:13

we cannot fully understand God but we can get closer to the truth by eliminating contradicting assumption or false reasoning

It is simply that men will not wait to judge God according to what He has said . men are by nature impatient, a property God uses very extensively, butit does mean that most men will not understand God in this life , God requires that... still those with enough wit can pull religion apart very easily and uncover its false doctrines... his is quite valid, but the conclusion that God is found in divided religion is not even logical, let alone true... why do people not notice that divided religion simply cannot be ONE truth of God, it is elementary proof that religion is almost completely false ... one can blame God for not telling men all truth now, but the scripture explains why that would be foolish, God simply has a plan which He explains and which explains the state of ignorance of mankind as necessary... oe can believe it since it explains all things in heaven and earth, or one can wait to have it explained by God , but the proof only comes in its realisation and one would have to study the signs in scripture to get that progressively more comprehensive proof... religion does not do this , but invents its own stories, private interpreations which by their diversity prove their falseness which scripture also asserts :-
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

there is only one true religion from God. at leas one true correct uncorrupted religion that must be followed. debating nature of God simply reveals which religion is truly following the word of God (correct nature of God). the very essence of this debate.

Thus one can either follow the signs and see prophecy unfold, or wait for God to explain it all personally to all men... but there will be scoffers who refuse to look at the prophecies and see the signs, scripture again identifies that this must be too...\

that is true. we reason from the scripture that God exists and that he is three-in-one. what if this reasoning is false. again this debate shows that reasoning three-in-one is false because it makes God less great. at least this is my conclusion.

and despite what religion teaches, there is no advantage whatsoever in leaing into faith in this or that doctrine of men , God will teach all men Himself, no leap of faith is required except by man-made religion [and of course also by men's 'science' which also is purely relative] ...
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[Jesus]

Jesus never said literally "I am God worship Me". christians deduced this from the scripture. what if the deduction is false or based on corrupt facts in the scripture. to clear it all out, we debate the nature of God without the need for scripture. we just need our intelligence and instincts. in this debate, i am not refuting christianity. i am rather refuting a specific teaching: trinity.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

how is the argument one sided? i am comparing two forms of God from neutral point of view, regardless of my personal conclusion.

it is not a covered up attack or conspiracy. do not expect me to agree with you. my profile clearly says i am a muslim.

and it is not dogam at all. muslims and christians agree (or assume) God exists and that he is omnipotent and all-sufficient. so let us debate which form is greater for God to present himself as: one-in-one or three-in-one

No, your argument is one sided, if you dont notice your wording concludes a seemingly lop-sided argument in the name for the whole transcendence rather then the trinity of christian ideology, maybe you should read your post better because comments like "Which is better, a number of gods making One God or the One All-Glorious All-Mighty God?" which holds your esteem and discription of the all-glorious god to be higher in relation to the god of multiple representations.

 

[Blackguard_]

This makes God not All-Sufficient.

How?

One is enough.

So? Why is God, of all things, limited to the necessary?

I believe God is not going to do something that would make him any less great, sufficient, mighty ... .etc. I see three-in-one makes God less great if he can be one-in-one.

I don't see how being three-in-one makes him less those things. If anything it would seem to make him greater to be three of all those things at once.

I think your and my conceptions of God are equal. (unless yours is incapable of a Trinity). If God is omni-max, how is being a Trinity beyond his power?

there is only one God, the Creator of this universe. there are no two God to compete.

Agreed.

I am debating two forms of God where God would assume the greatest form. one-in-one is not simpler than three-in-one. it is greater than three-in-one. this is what we are debating here.

Ok, but you have yet to demonstrate why it;s better.

for a start, it makes God less than All-Sufficient All-Mighty to have two extra of himself beside him whether or not they are in harmony or different form

How does it make God less than all suffient/mighty? What do you mean by "all-sufficient"?