What does it mean by One God?

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes the separate parts of my body support the other parts. To say that my toe has the same function/essence as my heart is ridiculous. My toes and heart are part of me. If I lost my toe would I cease to be me? No. If Jesus ceases to exist would God still exist. No. This comparison does not work.

I didn't say Jesus is your toe, now did I? That's you who is jumping to that conclusion. No, if anything, when it comes to the Trinity, I'd say Jesus is the Heart of the matter.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The law of non-contradiction says that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, and in the same relationship.

The confession in Christianity is that God is one in essence and three in Person. God is one in A, and three in B. Now if we said he was one in essence, and three in essence, then that would be a contradiction. Or if we said he is one in person, and three in person, then that would be a contradiction.

What specifically with the above do you take issue with? I'm not defining terms beyond what Christianity has historically and consistently held as the basic, fundamental view of the Trinity. One essence, three persons. This is not contradictory. It passes the test of the law of non-contradiction. If you disagree, then you need to actually be specific and actually explain how the above confession of Christianity violates the law of non-contradiction. You have yet to do that.

The term person and essence and trinity and hypostatic union definitions are all terms unique to Christianity to explain the trinity. This is the same as just asserting the trinity is logical without ant evidence that it is. That is all that is happening here. The fact is when you discuss the trinity with Christians they all agree that Jesus is fully God, The HS is fully God, the Father is fully God and are distinct person. They also claim there is only one God.

You are saying that essence and person are the same and not the same at the same time. That is illogical.

As explained, the nature of God cannot change. God as MGB possesses all godly attributes to their maximum. Thus, all persons of the Godhead are equal and share the same essence.

Is God part of that essence?

Tri-Theism is what you're stuck on. Piper says:

There is only one God. If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: “There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21–22; see also Isaiah 44:6–8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4–5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.

Piper is just saying it is true becasue the bible says it is. So what.

Can you be specific about what definitions are being "made up" And then after you clarify what the made up definitions are, can you provide alternative working definitions for us to base our conversation on?

Person - The definition you gave above even said that it was made up. That is is unique to Christainity.
Hypostatic union is a made up theology.

How precisely does saying that something is mysterious result in violating a law of logic? I'm not making that connection. As far as I know, the Trinity has never violated a law of logic as it is not asserting, and never has asserted that A is both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.

You are hung up on how Christianity defines the trinity and not how it actually works. I can assert that my dog is also a cat and that does not violate the law of non contradiction, that does not make it so. This is what you are doing with the trinity.

Again, my entire point is not to prove to you that the Trinity actually exists. I'm just trying to help you understand that the Trinity does not violate any laws of logic. Is it mysterious? Yes. Is it beyond our comprehension to explain and understand? Yes. Is that expected? Absolutely.

You say it is mysterious and beyond your comprehension and understanding but then assert that it does not violate the law of non contradiction. Do you see the problem with this? Even bigger, why do you believe it is true without being able to comprehend or understand it?

 

[SPF]

The term person and essence and trinity and hypostatic union definitions are all terms unique to Christianity to explain the trinity.

Correct, what's the problem with that? If you don't like the definitions being used, I welcome you to present different definitions and then we can continue the conversation.

The fact is when you discuss the trinity with Christians they all agree that Jesus is fully God, The HS is fully God, the Father is fully God and are distinct person. They also claim there is only one God.

Correct. We believe that the Scripture teaches that there is One God, revealed in Three Persons. Again, this does not violate the law of non-contradiction in that we assert that God is one in A and three in B.

You are saying that essence and person are the same and not the same at the same time. That is illogical.

I'm certainly not trying to say that, as that would be illogical. I think Piper said it well:

Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God’s essence is his being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the “stuff” that you “consist of.” Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as “consisting of” anything other than divinity. The “substance” of God is God, not a bunch of “ingredients” that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as “You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because he regards the Son as a “You,” even though he regards himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.” These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but “a form of personal existence other than a difference in being” (Grudem, 255; I believe that this is a helpful definition, but it should be recognized that Grudem himself is offering this as more of an explanation than definition of Person).

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God’s one, undivided being is an “unfolding” into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: “The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and — using a common illustration — as the open palm differs from a closed fist” (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God [Banner of Truth Trust, 1991], page 303).

Because each of these “forms of existence” are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding himself as “I” and the others as “you.” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of” the same “stuff” (that is, the same “what” or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one “what” but three “who’s.”

The divine essence is thus not something that exists “above” or “separate from” the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains,

But if each person is fully God and has all of God’s being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God. . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God . . . the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of ‘being’ but a difference of ‘relationships.’ This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human ‘person’ is a different being as well. Somehow God’s being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons. (253–254)

You are hung up on how Christianity defines the trinity and not how it actually works.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. For the scope of my contribution towards the discussion, all I'm attempting to do is demonstrate how the formulation of the Trinity in orthodox Christianity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

I can assert that my dog is also a cat and that does not violate the law of non contradiction, that does not make it so.

Correct, we would look at how you're defining the terms for your argument and then see if your claim violates the law of non-contradiction. Terms matter, which is why I invite you to provide alternative definitions if you aren't willing to accept the ones I'm operating from.

You say it is mysterious and beyond your comprehension and understanding but then assert that it does not violate the law of non contradiction. Do you see the problem with this?

No, I don't see the problem with that at all. I don't understand how a lot of things work in this world, but not understanding how something functions is different than being able to understand if the thing in question is logical or not. Being able to recognize that something is logical does not necessarily mean that you, or I automatically understand how the said thing functions.

Even bigger, why do you believe it is true without being able to comprehend or understand it?

I already answered this. I'm happy to do so again for you. I said:

"The fact is that nobody at any point in history has ever been able to fully explain how the Trinity works, and nobody ever will, and that's not a bad thing. You may scoff at that notion, but the fact is that it's foolish to actually think that a created, contingent, finite being would be, and should be capable of fully understanding the nature of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient Being. It honestly makes me laugh to think that someone is so foolish and arrogant enough to think that they ought to be able to fully understand the Trinity."

To expound further, as that seems necessary since you asked again. God possesses what Wayne Grudem refers to as both communicable and incommunicable attributes. There is of course some crossover between the two, and while we can see and know glimpses of the incommunicable attributes, they are still truly beyond our full comprehension.

For example, the eternality of God. I'm a finite, contingent being. You are too, in fact everything we know and experience and see is finite. I can understand to a degree the notion of something existing eternally, but I can't fully grasp it. How an eternal being's relationship to time works for one, is certainly beyond my comprehension. Omnipresence is another one of those incommunicable attributes. How does that look? have you tried picturing an omnipresent being? It can get weird, fast.

But just because I can't fully comprehend something doesn't make it illogical. It just means I'm being honest, and humble. What kind of God would God be if you and I could understand perfectly His full nature? Why would you expect to? That seems like the more pertinent question. I'm certainly not that arrogant.

But anyway, to try and tie this all back to the point I've been trying to make. With the definitions employed by Christians throughout history in explaining the Trinity, insofar as they are used, the Trinity is not a contradictory thing to believe.

I don't know why you would want to alter the definitions, but I'm more than happy to use whatever revised definitions you want to put forth. It seems a lot easier to just work with what Christians have been using for the past few thousand years. But I'm up for whatever.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I didn't say Jesus is your toe, now did I? That's you who is jumping to that conclusion. No, if anything, when it comes to the Trinity, I'd say Jesus is the Heart of the matter.

Which really says nothing. I have no idea what you mean.

Is Jesus God?
Is the HS God?
Is the Father God?
Is there only one God?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, I don't see the problem with that at all. I don't understand how a lot of things work in this world, but not understanding how something functions is different than being able to understand if the thing in question is logical or not. Being able to recognize that something is logical does not necessarily mean that you, or I automatically understand how the said thing functions.

This is really all I need to know. We will never come to common ground when you and I have fundamental differences in how to ascertain what truth is.

You say you cannot comprehend or understand the trinity but you are making truth claims about it. ????

 

[SPF]

This is really all I need to know. We will never come to common ground when you and I have fundamental differences in how to ascertain what truth is.

You say you cannot comprehend or understand the trinity but you are making truth claims about it. ????

Honestly, this response sounds like a not so subtle way to try and back out of a conversation that you're clearly not making any headway on.

The claim I'm making about the Trinity is that insofar as it is described by Christianity that it does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to expand the conversation and move the goal post and say that you also want me to explain, fully, the nature of an eternally existing God. That's not my purpose, nor is it a necessary thing to be able to do within the confines of what I'm claiming.

My claim is very simple in its scope.

What I'm saying is this:

In Christian doctrine, the confession is that God is one in essence and three in Person. God is one in A, and three in B. Now if we said he was one in essence, and three in essence, then that would be a contradiction. Or if we said he is one in person, and three in person, then that would be a contradiction.

But if we're talking purely logical language here, the orthodox view of the Trinity does not violate any laws of logic. As mysterious as the Trinity may be, and as beyond our capacity to fully understand as it might be - it does not violate any laws of logic.

If you disagree with the above, all you need to do is specifically point out what about the claim is violating the law of non-contradiction. To date, you have not. The most you have come up with in a response is to say that I'm using definitions that allow the claim to not violate the law of non-contradiction, but the definitions you would use would somehow make it violate the law of non-contradiction.

To that I would say great! I have established that according to the definitions and usage of words insofar as orthodox Christianity has used them for the past few thousand years that the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

However, if you want to (for some unknown reason to me), alter the definitions of terms used, then I'm fine with that. You just need to provide these alternate definitions, and then we can see if it's possible to formulate the Christian view of the Trinity within the definitions that you provide. But you of course, have yet to do that, and I suspect that you probably won't. I wouldn't either as the definitions and terms as Christians have used them for the past few thousands years ought to be enough.

I think perhaps one of the problems you have is that you are uncomfortable with the idea that you aren't capable of knowing everything about God. But that should actually do the opposite. What kind of God would God actually be if I could understand everything about His nature? As a finite, contingent being, the thought of fully comprehending the complex nature of an eternal being is not something I expect to attain. I think it would be foolish to expect perfect understanding.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Honestly, this response sounds like a not so subtle way to try and back out of a conversation that you're clearly not making any headway on.

Whatever. It is a valid point that you are making claims about something you admit do not comprehend or understand.

The claim I'm making about the Trinity is that insofar as it is described by Christianity that it does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to expand the conversation and move the goal post and say that you also want me to explain, fully, the nature of an eternally existing God. That's not my purpose, nor is it a necessary thing to be able to do within the confines of what I'm claiming.

My claim is very simple in its scope.

What I'm saying is this:

In Christian doctrine, the confession is that God is one in essence and three in Person. God is one in A, and three in B. Now if we said he was one in essence, and three in essence, then that would be a contradiction. Or if we said he is one in person, and three in person, then that would be a contradiction.

You say God is one A in three B then go on to discuss how A and B are the same thing.

But if we're talking purely logical language here, the orthodox view of the Trinity does not violate any laws of logic. As mysterious as the Trinity may be, and as beyond our capacity to fully understand as it might be - it does not violate any laws of logic.

If you are saying that the letter A and the letter B are non contradictory then ok. But what A and B represent is what I am talking about. Again if the three persons of the trinity are all God and the one god is god then there is a problem. Are you saying that the three persons of the trinity are not god or that the one god is not god?

I think perhaps one of the problems you have is that you are uncomfortable with the idea that you aren't capable of knowing everything about God.

No, I am convinced no one knows what God is like if he even exists. The thousands of denominations affirm this. Atheists are generally not bothered with I don't know answers. It is usually the religious that don't like it.

But that should actually do the opposite. What kind of God would God actually be if I could understand everything about His nature? As a finite, contingent being, the thought of fully comprehending the complex nature of an eternal being is not something I expect to attain. I think it would be foolish to expect perfect understanding.

Then just say you don't understand and leave it at that. You trying to justify the trinity logically when you admit you cannot comprehend or understand it is what I don't see as logical as well. You can say as much as I can understand I don't think it contradicts the laws of logic but you cannot say it does not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which really says nothing. I have no idea what you mean.

Is Jesus God?

Yes

Is the HS God?

Yes

Is the Father God?

Yes

Is there only one God?

Yes

Now, assume that when you're talking about "God," by it we know what 'it' is [which we really don't] and can then discern with exactness the distinctive semantics that are involved in it in the same way that we do when we ....................................then cite the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Then think: Tarski.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Now, assume that when you're talking about "God," by it we know what 'it' is [which we really don't] and can then discern with exactness the distinctive semantics that are involved in it in the same way that we do when we ....................................then cite the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Then think: Tarski.

You cannot have 4 Gods and 1 God at the same time. If by God you mean the same thing.

Or just admit like above you don't know who God is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You cannot have 4 Gods and 1 God at the same time. If by God you mean the same thing.

Or just admit like above you don't know who God is.

Fortunately, I only have one Lord and Savior, through whom has been explained to me, on rudimentary levels, the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, whether there is 1 God, or 4 Gods, or 1 God with three heads or 3 Gods with one head, or ... whatever it is that God 'Is that He Is'---I still can identify Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah. End of story.

 

[SPF]

Whatever. It is a valid point that you are making claims about something you admit do not comprehend or understand.

You are correct in that understanding fully exactly how an eternal God exists and operates as a being in Himself is something finite creatures are simply incapable of doing. But for some reason, you seem to think that this fact means that we can't know anything about God, or that we can't acknowledge that what we do know, albeit limited, is logical. I'm not sure why you think that in order to recognize something as logical or not you have to have exhaustive and complete knowledge of the idea in question. It's simply not true, and you know it.

You say God is one A in three B then go on to discuss how A and B are the same thing.

Can you point out how I have done this. I'll post again an explanation of how the two are different. Can you show me how you think this is saying they are the same? Feel free to use quotations and actual references.

Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God’s essence is his being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the “stuff” that you “consist of.” Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as “consisting of” anything other than divinity. The “substance” of God is God, not a bunch of “ingredients” that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as “You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because he regards the Son as a “You,” even though he regards himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.” These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but “a form of personal existence other than a difference in being” (Grudem, 255; I believe that this is a helpful definition, but it should be recognized that Grudem himself is offering this as more of an explanation than definition of Person).

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God’s one, undivided being is an “unfolding” into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: “The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and — using a common illustration — as the open palm differs from a closed fist” (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God [Banner of Truth Trust, 1991], page 303).

Because each of these “forms of existence” are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding himself as “I” and the others as “you.” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of” the same “stuff” (that is, the same “what” or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one “what” but three “who’s.”

The divine essence is thus not something that exists “above” or “separate from” the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains,

But if each person is fully God and has all of God’s being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God. . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God . . . the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of ‘being’ but a difference of ‘relationships.’ This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human ‘person’ is a different being as well. Somehow God’s being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons.

Again if the three persons of the trinity are all God and the one god is god then there is a problem. Are you saying that the three persons of the trinity are not god or that the one god is not god?

I think the above comments address this. I think the problem may lie in your understanding of the term "person". This is precisely why understanding terms is important. Once you take a few minutes to read the above and come to an understanding of how person is being used, let me know what questions you have about it and whether or not you still think it is contradictory. If so, please be specific.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Fortunately, I only have one Lord and Savior, through whom has been explained to me, on rudimentary levels, the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, whether there is 1 God, or 4 Gods, or 1 God with three heads or 3 Gods with one head, or ... whatever it is that God 'Is that He Is'---I still can identify Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah. End of story.

Ok, just keep believing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, just keep believing.

And you just keep ignoring Tarski, and maybe Wittgenstein, too. It's easier to bear that way ...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You are correct in that understanding fully exactly how an eternal God exists and operates as a being in Himself is something finite creatures are simply incapable of doing. But for some reason, you seem to think that this fact means that we can't know anything about God, or that we can't acknowledge that what we do know, albeit limited, is logical. I'm not sure why you think that in order to recognize something as logical or not you have to have exhaustive and complete knowledge of the idea in question. It's simply not true, and you know it.

Nope, You cannot know with 100% certainty that the trinity is logical if you cannot understand the trinity fully. You can say I believe it is or that to the best of my knowledge I believe it is logical. But a 100% certainty that it is logical you cannot say.

Can you point out how I have done this. I'll post again an explanation of how the two are different. Can you show me how you think this is saying they are the same? Feel free to use quotations and actual references.

Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God’s essence is his being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the “stuff” that you “consist of.” Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as “consisting of” anything other than divinity. The “substance” of God is God, not a bunch of “ingredients” that taken together yield deity.

The "substance of God is God" is a tautology and means nothing. It also defines essence with an analogy then goes on to say the analogy is insufficient and that the essence is divinity. It claims that God is spirit without defining what that means.

Person.

In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

This is not a definition of person. This just says what it is not which is not very useful.

The definitions of essence and person are not well defined. However, if all have the same essence and as said above that essence is divinity, then all are divine. How is this not more than one divine being or God?

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as “You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because he regards the Son as a “You,” even though he regards himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.” These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but “a form of personal existence other than a difference in being” (Grudem, 255; I believe that this is a helpful definition, but it should be recognized that Grudem himself is offering this as more of an explanation than definition of Person).

"Form of personal existence" Not very specific language to understand what a person is here. This is what I am saying about defining the trinity to not be logical. Which is just assertion.

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God’s one, undivided being is an “unfolding” into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: “The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and — using a common illustration — as the open palm differs from a closed fist” (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God [Banner of Truth Trust, 1991], page 303).

"They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being." What does this mean? When Jesus was on earth how was he not a "difference in being" form the HS or Father? Because you just say he wasn't.

Because each of these “forms of existence” are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding himself as “I” and the others as “you.” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of” the same “stuff” (that is, the same “what” or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one “what” but three “who’s.”

Three who's cannot be one who at the same time. Or is god not a who? Kore word games.

The divine essence is thus not something that exists “above” or “separate from” the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains,

But if each person is fully God and has all of God’s being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God. . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God . . . the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of ‘being’ but a difference of ‘relationships.’ This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human ‘person’ is a different being as well. Somehow God’s being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons.

This is just saying that since we cannot understand God it just works somehow. That is not good epistemology.

I think the above comments address this. I think the problem may lie in your understanding of the term "person". This is precisely why understanding terms is important. Once you take a few minutes to read the above and come to an understanding of how person is being used, let me know what questions you have about it and whether or not you still think it is contradictory. If so, please be specific.

See above. Person is not well defined at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope, You cannot know with 100% certainty that the trinity is logical if you cannot understand the trinity fully. You can say I believe it is or that to the best of my knowledge I believe it is logical. But a 100% certainty that it is logical you cannot say.

The "substance of God is God" is a tautology and means nothing. It also defines essence with an analogy then goes on to say the analogy is insufficient and that the essence is divinity. It claims that God is spirit without defining what that means.

This is not a definition of person. This just says what it is not which is not very useful.

The definitions of essence and person are not well defined. However, if all have the same essence and as said above that essence is divinity, then all are divine. How is this not more than one divine being or God?

"Form of personal existence" Not very specific language to understand what a person is here. This is what I am saying about defining the trinity to not be logical. Which is just assertion.

"They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being." What does this mean? When Jesus was on earth how was he not a "difference in being" form the HS or Father? Because you just say he wasn't.

Three who's cannot be one who at the same time. Or is god not a who? Kore word games.

This is just saying that since we cannot understand God it just works somehow. That is not good epistemology.

See above. Person is not well defined at all.

And what is "good" epistemology? You've been skirting all of my 'direct' inquiries ever since you arrived onto CF, as if it's ONLY Christians who have to answer any question, ever unto you. But, news flash about your epistemic approach!: NO DICE!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And you just keep ignoring Tarski, and maybe Wittgenstein, too. It's easier to bear that way ...

Not ignoring, Examining the evidence and have come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to believe that a god exists. Where is the evidence? If you had it you would have just shown it to me and answered questions directly. Instead all you offer is a mountain of words that mean little. If you have sufficient evidence for God submit it to scientists so they can evaluate your claim. If you had sufficient evidence for Gods existence then you would be the most famous person in the world and glorify God to the max.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not ignoring, Examining the evidence and have come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to believe that a god exists. Where is the evidence? If you had it you would have just shown it to me and answered questions directly. Instead all you offer is a mountain of words that mean little. If you have sufficient evidence for God submit it to scientists so they can evaluate your claim. If you had sufficient evidence for Gods existence then you would be the most famous person in the world and glorify God to the max.

Submit it to scientists? What're you even talk'n about, Clizby? Now your avowing for Scientism? Haven't you ever heard of Methodological Naturalism? Do I have to show my Eugenie C. Scott video yet once again?

The evidence that is available isn't going to be utterly and completely (nor competently, mind you) an endeavor for science to study. You do realize this epistemic problem in your position, right? Or haven't you studied any of the chasm between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And what is "good" epistemology? You've been skirting all of my 'direct' inquiries ever since you arrived onto CF, as if it's ONLY Christians who have to answer any question, ever unto you. But, news flash about your epistemic approach!: NO DICE!

When I make a claim I will defend it. What claim have I made?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Submit it to scientists? What're you even talk'n about, Clizby? Now your avowing for Scientism? Haven't you ever heard of Methodological Naturalism? Do I have to show my Eugenie C. Scott video yet once again?

Same ol Same ol, avoiding the content of my posts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When I make a claim I will defend it. What claim have I made?

You don't have to make a claim, because at least sometimes---and I don't think you realize it---support some aspect of a methodology or conceptual scheme, that precludes and/or invites in even, other kinds of inquiry.