"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[°Leprechaun]

I will get back to the Trinity, if anyone is interested, at some later point.
I will get back to the pros and cons of religion in general at some later point.

With all that's going on in DC right now, it's hard to focus on the never ending discussions of
religion. There is certainly overlap in discussion of political philosophy, and the separation of church and state.

Another topic for the future is religion, the infidels (atheists etc.) and ethical controversy.

Deism is another topic that I might bring up in the future.

[muon2]

I will get back to the Trinity, if anyone is interested, at some later point.

I remain interested in why you find the Trinity problematic in comparison to other religious views of God. It is interesting since the concept of divine entities with different manifestations (in time, place, and circumstance) occur in many religions.

Are these "three" persons" the same? If yes, why divide them? If no, why not? The latter would seem to create a problem, a god with a divided mind, like a multiple personality disorder.

The expression of different and at times exclusive aspects is not a sign of disorder. It's part of the nature of the universe. In physics an electron can manifest itself as a concrete particle or a wave, but not necessarily both at the same time. The manifest form depends on the state of the observer. Though this seemed contradictory to scientists 100 years ago, we now understand how to use those different expressions of the electron to power the equipment that allows me to write and you to read this post.

We now regularly find other examples in nature of systems that can appear manifestly different in different situations. Why would that be considered disordered in the Divine?

[°Leprechaun]

I remain interested in why you find the Trinity problematic in comparison to other religious views of God. It is interesting since the concept of divine entities with different manifestations (in time, place, and circumstance) occur in many religions.

The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense.
Three does not equal one in a purely mathematical sense. Language is limited and can't actually describe the infinite. I am literally one person, but I am made up of various parts and can have conflict between my logical brain and emotional desires. To say that God can be divided makes perfect sense figuratively. The confusion over the trinity is that we need to discern between the literal and the figurative. The sun doesn't literally rise. A person can not literally be born again.
God may exist as a metaphor, but a person who holds such a concept can still be an atheist.
The stories in Genesis are like Aesop's fables. Who would argue that Aesop's fables were literally true?
So, what is problematic is understanding when something is to be taken literally, figuratively, or somewhere in between.
The only person that was traditionally believed to be seen was Jesus; nobody saw the Holy Spirit or the Father. The image of God was only seen in Jesus.
 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9 seems to suggest a oneness to God. Other places in the Bible suggest otherwise. How can these contradictions be reconciled?

[muon2]

I remain interested in why you find the Trinity problematic in comparison to other religious views of God. It is interesting since the concept of divine entities with different manifestations (in time, place, and circumstance) occur in many religions.

The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense.
Three does not equal one in a purely mathematical sense. Language is limited and can't actually describe the infinite. I am literally one person, but I am made up of various parts and can have conflict between my logical brain and emotional desires. To say that God can be divided makes perfect sense figuratively. The confusion over the trinity is that we need to discern between the literal and the figurative. The sun doesn't literally rise. A person can not literally be born again.
God may exist as a metaphor, but a person who holds such a concept can still be an atheist.
The stories in Genesis are like Aesop's fables. Who would argue that Aesop's fables were literally true?
So, what is problematic is understanding when something is to be taken literally, figuratively, or somewhere in between.
The only person that was traditionally believed to be seen was Jesus; nobody saw the Holy Spirit or the Father. The image of God was only seen in Jesus.
 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9 seems to suggest a oneness to God. Other places in the Bible suggest otherwise. How can these contradictions be reconciled?

The bold is what I disagree with. When I see the phrase three in one, I don't see it as parts like I have hands, head and heart. It is closer to the idea you express that you have a logical and an emotional aspect to your mind.

At times observers may see only your logical nature, yet at others they may only see your emotional nature. Suppose those observers never see both of those natures at once and don't or can't observe the internal conflict between them that you describe. Those observers may describe you as two minds in one and that makes literal sense to me - it's not a metaphor, nor is it disordered; it reflects real observation.

That's why I used the example of an electron, which can either be measured as a particle or a wave but not both at once, so we say it has a dual nature. If the variable affecting observation is temperature, we say that molecular H₂O has a ternary nature - ice, water and steam. Language can express a dual or ternary nature of a single entity.

[°Leprechaun]

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."

I would clarify that One God in three persons suggests polytheism.
If God can be three separate distinct persons.. and the idea is that these three are different in
the sense that there personalities are not exactly "on the same page".. that is what is problematic.

Yes polytheism can make sense, and perhaps the trinity can make sense, but it is still problematic
in that it deviates from the idea of God as one person. What doesn't make sense is to say that God
is one person and also three persons. The Christian trinity is not congruent with other religions (Islam being a good example) that see God. If each person is god, then that seems to indicate three gods. Also it is problematic to divide God because each part can't be infinite. If God is defined as being infinite then each part can't be. Mathematically you can multiple infinites.. all odd number... all even numbers... but that is a different meaning from the theological infinite... "God" would have to include everything. So a polytheistic or trinitarian views would be that each person or god is more like a demigod.. not the all of god which includes everything.  Pantheism or Panentheism seems to reconcile all of this..

Again it is complex... the idea of God in three persons stretches the mind.. and the problem with the Christian trinity if based no the Bible suggests, as I have stated above three ones which are different even to the point of almost being adversarial to one another. The son wanting one thing and the father wanting something else... The son wanting mercy and the father wanting justice, two different things.

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."
Actually too simple, and what is problematic is trying to re-define God as being divided when monotheism seems to suggest God is not divided. What I am saying is that changes the common sense idea of one person into three. It is like saying one  person is really three persons. Generally in the Bible a singular person is used.. in the beginning of Genesis God speaks as "WE" or "US" but that is, as I have said, meant to be figurative. Certainly in the Old Testament God is seen as a single person (or spirit), as suggested by the pronouns. I don't think that it is different in Hebrew, but it has been a long time since I studied Hebrew.

edit: another simpler argument is that three in one is possible, but not three equals one.

[Mopsus]

Christ is a creation of God, but is also a part of God, because He abides at all times in God’s will. The Holy Spirit is that part in all of us which abides in God, and which Christians seek to maximize (at the expense of the mortal ego). I think that’s as simple as you can put it.

[RFayette]

Christ is a creation of God, but is also a part of God, because He abides at all times in God’s will. The Holy Spirit is that part in all of us which abides in God, and which Christians seek to maximize (at the expense of the mortal ego). I think that’s as simple as you can put it.

I think some clarification is necessary here about Christ, because while his Earthly self was indeed created at a point in space and time, Jesus existed eternally as the Word prior to incarnation.

[muon2]

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."

I would clarify that One God in three persons suggests polytheism.
If God can be three separate distinct persons.. and the idea is that these three are different in
the sense that there personalities are not exactly "on the same page".. that is what is problematic.

Yes polytheism can make sense, and perhaps the trinity can make sense, but it is still problematic
in that it deviates from the idea of God as one person. What doesn't make sense is to say that God
is one person and also three persons. The Christian trinity is not congruent with other religions (Islam being a good example) that see God. If each person is god, then that seems to indicate three gods. Also it is problematic to divide God because each part can't be infinite. If God is defined as being infinite then each part can't be. Mathematically you can multiple infinites.. all odd number... all even numbers... but that is a different meaning from the theological infinite... "God" would have to include everything. So a polytheistic or trinitarian views would be that each person or god is more like a demigod.. not the all of god which includes everything.  Pantheism or Panentheism seems to reconcile all of this..

Again it is complex... the idea of God in three persons stretches the mind.. and the problem with the Christian trinity if based no the Bible suggests, as I have stated above three ones which are different even to the point of almost being adversarial to one another. The son wanting one thing and the father wanting something else... The son wanting mercy and the father wanting justice, two different things.

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."
Actually too simple, and what is problematic is trying to re-define God as being divided when monotheism seems to suggest God is not divided. What I am saying is that changes the common sense idea of one person into three. It is like saying one  person is really three persons. Generally in the Bible a singular person is used.. in the beginning of Genesis God speaks as "WE" or "US" but that is, as I have said, meant to be figurative. Certainly in the Old Testament God is seen as a single person (or spirit), as suggested by the pronouns. I don't think that it is different in Hebrew, but it has been a long time since I studied Hebrew.

edit: another simpler argument is that three in one is possible, but not three equals one.

I think you are not distinguishing between the concept of separate multiple entities and one entity with multiple separate manifestations. I've given you real examples of the latter, but you haven't suggested how that use of language makes sense while it doesn't make sense when speaking of the Divine.

[°Leprechaun]

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."

I would clarify that One God in three persons suggests polytheism.
If God can be three separate distinct persons.. and the idea is that these three are different in
the sense that there personalities are not exactly "on the same page".. that is what is problematic.

Yes polytheism can make sense, and perhaps the trinity can make sense, but it is still problematic
in that it deviates from the idea of God as one person. What doesn't make sense is to say that God
is one person and also three persons. The Christian trinity is not congruent with other religions (Islam being a good example) that see God. If each person is god, then that seems to indicate three gods. Also it is problematic to divide God because each part can't be infinite. If God is defined as being infinite then each part can't be. Mathematically you can multiple infinites.. all odd number... all even numbers... but that is a different meaning from the theological infinite... "God" would have to include everything. So a polytheistic or trinitarian views would be that each person or god is more like a demigod.. not the all of god which includes everything.  Pantheism or Panentheism seems to reconcile all of this..

Again it is complex... the idea of God in three persons stretches the mind.. and the problem with the Christian trinity if based no the Bible suggests, as I have stated above three ones which are different even to the point of almost being adversarial to one another. The son wanting one thing and the father wanting something else... The son wanting mercy and the father wanting justice, two different things.

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."
Actually too simple, and what is problematic is trying to re-define God as being divided when monotheism seems to suggest God is not divided. What I am saying is that changes the common sense idea of one person into three. It is like saying one  person is really three persons. Generally in the Bible a singular person is used.. in the beginning of Genesis God speaks as "WE" or "US" but that is, as I have said, meant to be figurative. Certainly in the Old Testament God is seen as a single person (or spirit), as suggested by the pronouns. I don't think that it is different in Hebrew, but it has been a long time since I studied Hebrew.

edit: another simpler argument is that three in one is possible, but not three equals one.

I think you are not distinguishing between the concept of separate multiple entities and one entity with multiple separate manifestations. I've given you real examples of the latter, but you haven't suggested how that use of language makes sense while it doesn't make sense when speaking of the Divine.

The difference is between dividing an intelligent being like a human or a god and an inanimate object. That's an obvious difference. I don't know as much about science as you do, but I know that water is made up of two different elements. Dividing a god or a human is different in dividing matter. There is only one of me. I am one person, not three. I don't see how a god can be three if god is an intelligent being. If god is a thing, yes it can be divided into three things/three parts. If god is a living conscious being, he/she is indivisible. That would seem like common sense. This god could have divided thoughts. You could say god the father who is just and wants to punish evil humans, versus god the son who pleads to his father for mercy. This is the problem, a god who uses his own son as a scapegoat and doesn't demand accountability from humans. Why should humans not be held accountable? If the son pays the price, the punishment, why can't humans simply do whatever they want? Hence such a religion does no good and does not encourage good behavior at all.

[°Leprechaun]

The bottom line is that there are no good arguments for the god in three persons idea.
There is zero evidence for it, and a very strong reason to reject it.
I don't think that the average Christian has given it much thought.
It has been part of the orthodox dogma of Christian for centuries, and most people would not likely give it much thought because they don't see how it would make a difference to their lives.

This is all speculation, but certainly Christianity as a whole is not a majority religion in the World and traditional Christianity seems to be in decline. By traditional I mean evangelical and Catholicism.
People seem to be more inclined to be the same religion as their parents, but this may change in the future as new generations have started questioning the faith of their ancestors. It has been a slow process.

[°Leprechaun]

Simply put, it is the word "person" which makes no sense to me. Saying God can be divided into three, is very different than saying God is three persons. It is the latter which I can't understand not the former. I would repeat, it is polytheistic. Three does not equal one.

[°Leprechaun]

Two people can be as one. They can feel united. They can experience an I-thou feeling. They are still two, literally, if figuratively they are one.

[muon2]

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."

I would clarify that One God in three persons suggests polytheism.
If God can be three separate distinct persons.. and the idea is that these three are different in
the sense that there personalities are not exactly "on the same page".. that is what is problematic.

Yes polytheism can make sense, and perhaps the trinity can make sense, but it is still problematic
in that it deviates from the idea of God as one person. What doesn't make sense is to say that God
is one person and also three persons. The Christian trinity is not congruent with other religions (Islam being a good example) that see God. If each person is god, then that seems to indicate three gods. Also it is problematic to divide God because each part can't be infinite. If God is defined as being infinite then each part can't be. Mathematically you can multiple infinites.. all odd number... all even numbers... but that is a different meaning from the theological infinite... "God" would have to include everything. So a polytheistic or trinitarian views would be that each person or god is more like a demigod.. not the all of god which includes everything.  Pantheism or Panentheism seems to reconcile all of this..

Again it is complex... the idea of God in three persons stretches the mind.. and the problem with the Christian trinity if based no the Bible suggests, as I have stated above three ones which are different even to the point of almost being adversarial to one another. The son wanting one thing and the father wanting something else... The son wanting mercy and the father wanting justice, two different things.

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."
Actually too simple, and what is problematic is trying to re-define God as being divided when monotheism seems to suggest God is not divided. What I am saying is that changes the common sense idea of one person into three. It is like saying one  person is really three persons. Generally in the Bible a singular person is used.. in the beginning of Genesis God speaks as "WE" or "US" but that is, as I have said, meant to be figurative. Certainly in the Old Testament God is seen as a single person (or spirit), as suggested by the pronouns. I don't think that it is different in Hebrew, but it has been a long time since I studied Hebrew.

edit: another simpler argument is that three in one is possible, but not three equals one.

I think you are not distinguishing between the concept of separate multiple entities and one entity with multiple separate manifestations. I've given you real examples of the latter, but you haven't suggested how that use of language makes sense while it doesn't make sense when speaking of the Divine.

The difference is between dividing an intelligent being like a human or a god and an inanimate object. That's an obvious difference. I don't know as much about science as you do, but I know that water is made up of two different elements. Dividing a god or a human is different in dividing matter. There is only one of me. I am one person, not three. I don't see how a god can be three if god is an intelligent being. If god is a thing, yes it can be divided into three things/three parts. If god is a living conscious being, he/she is indivisible. That would seem like common sense. This god could have divided thoughts. You could say god the father who is just and wants to punish evil humans, versus god the son who pleads to his father for mercy. This is the problem, a god who uses his own son as a scapegoat and doesn't demand accountability from humans. Why should humans not be held accountable? If the son pays the price, the punishment, why can't humans simply do whatever they want? Hence such a religion does no good and does not encourage good behavior at all.

I don't divide a collection of water molecules in order to have it manifest itself as ice, liquid water, or steam. I don't need to divide you to have you appear as a logical person rather than an emotional person. I'm not talking about dividing anything. I'm talking about a being manifesting itself in different forms. There's no division required.

In the second half of your post it seems that your issue is about whether it makes philosophical or theological sense to have different aspects of God that appear to be at odds with each other. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about whether the language makes sense to talk about a being that can have separate manifest forms. I claim that such language is completely sensible in a wide variety of contexts. I don't think it is useful to conflate the plain meaning of the phrase "three in one" and the philosophical or theological implications of it.

[°Leprechaun]

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."

I would clarify that One God in three persons suggests polytheism.
If God can be three separate distinct persons.. and the idea is that these three are different in
the sense that there personalities are not exactly "on the same page".. that is what is problematic.

Yes polytheism can make sense, and perhaps the trinity can make sense, but it is still problematic
in that it deviates from the idea of God as one person. What doesn't make sense is to say that God
is one person and also three persons. The Christian trinity is not congruent with other religions (Islam being a good example) that see God. If each person is god, then that seems to indicate three gods. Also it is problematic to divide God because each part can't be infinite. If God is defined as being infinite then each part can't be. Mathematically you can multiple infinites.. all odd number... all even numbers... but that is a different meaning from the theological infinite... "God" would have to include everything. So a polytheistic or trinitarian views would be that each person or god is more like a demigod.. not the all of god which includes everything.  Pantheism or Panentheism seems to reconcile all of this..

Again it is complex... the idea of God in three persons stretches the mind.. and the problem with the Christian trinity if based no the Bible suggests, as I have stated above three ones which are different even to the point of almost being adversarial to one another. The son wanting one thing and the father wanting something else... The son wanting mercy and the father wanting justice, two different things.

"The simple answer is that a 100% literal concept of God in three persons makes no sense."
Actually too simple, and what is problematic is trying to re-define God as being divided when monotheism seems to suggest God is not divided. What I am saying is that changes the common sense idea of one person into three. It is like saying one  person is really three persons. Generally in the Bible a singular person is used.. in the beginning of Genesis God speaks as "WE" or "US" but that is, as I have said, meant to be figurative. Certainly in the Old Testament God is seen as a single person (or spirit), as suggested by the pronouns. I don't think that it is different in Hebrew, but it has been a long time since I studied Hebrew.

edit: another simpler argument is that three in one is possible, but not three equals one.

I think you are not distinguishing between the concept of separate multiple entities and one entity with multiple separate manifestations. I've given you real examples of the latter, but you haven't suggested how that use of language makes sense while it doesn't make sense when speaking of the Divine.

The difference is between dividing an intelligent being like a human or a god and an inanimate object. That's an obvious difference. I don't know as much about science as you do, but I know that water is made up of two different elements. Dividing a god or a human is different in dividing matter. There is only one of me. I am one person, not three. I don't see how a god can be three if god is an intelligent being. If god is a thing, yes it can be divided into three things/three parts. If god is a living conscious being, he/she is indivisible. That would seem like common sense. This god could have divided thoughts. You could say god the father who is just and wants to punish evil humans, versus god the son who pleads to his father for mercy. This is the problem, a god who uses his own son as a scapegoat and doesn't demand accountability from humans. Why should humans not be held accountable? If the son pays the price, the punishment, why can't humans simply do whatever they want? Hence such a religion does no good and does not encourage good behavior at all.

I don't divide a collection of water molecules in order to have it manifest itself as ice, liquid water, or steam. I don't need to divide you to have you appear as a logical person rather than an emotional person. I'm not talking about dividing anything. I'm talking about a being manifesting itself in different forms. There's no division required.

In the second half of your post it seems that your issue is about whether it makes philosophical or theological sense to have different aspects of God that appear to be at odds with each other. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about whether the language makes sense to talk about a being that can have separate manifest forms. I claim that such language is completely sensible in a wide variety of contexts. I don't think it is useful to conflate the plain meaning of the phrase "three in one" and the philosophical or theological implications of it.

Well, I am confused. Of course a person can have different manifestations, but I don't understand how that makes that person not one but three persons, that is what I am talking about.
If a god exists, he/she could have used a human body (Jesus), (hypothetically speaking), but I don't see how proves that he/she is more than one. "God" could have chosen to manifest "himself" in more than one incarnation, if "God" is more than just one person. This is all hypothesis, but where's the proof or even evidence for any of it?
If this hypothetical God is not one person, than what is he? That's what makes no sense.
Who is the head god? In mythology doesn't the pantheon have a "head" god? Zeus, Jupiter?
That would make more sense, many deities with one of them in charge. This co-equal idea seems unique to Christianity. In order to make sense language would have explain what this trinity is, in terms that someone understands. Belief without understanding such a belief doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like practically speaking an empty belief.

[°Leprechaun]

If one accepts the Bible (and I don't) one could argue that Jesus was a manifestation of god (and even that is an interpretation), but Jesus, the person was finite. How could someone finite be infinite.
At best a person (really any person) can be a manifestation of the divine.

If someone tells me that I am created in the image of god, does that make me a manifestation of god?
Do I have the divine within me, as some would claim? I am certainly no claiming to be a god, but if I am created in the image of god, what does that say about me?

These are interesting questions, yes, but it would seem if I were to spend too much time on them I'd go nuts, if I haven't already, since perhaps I've spent too much time thinking about them.
Infinite and unpredictable sequences like pi not only seemingly without end but actually without end where ever possible sequence of numbers occurs infinitely without pattern. That is my finite conceptualization of infinity. I equate such infinity with the concept of a god, but it is very different from what most people conceptualize as "god".

[Mopsus]

Simply put, it is the word "person" which makes no sense to me. Saying God can be divided into three, is very different than saying God is three persons. It is the latter which I can't understand not the former. I would repeat, it is polytheistic. Three does not equal one.

You should look into the Eastern ideas of atman and Brahman. It might clarify your thinking on this subject.

[°Leprechaun]

Simply put, it is the word "person" which makes no sense to me. Saying God can be divided into three, is very different than saying God is three persons. It is the latter which I can't understand not the former. I would repeat, it is polytheistic. Three does not equal one.

You should look into the Eastern ideas of atman and Brahman. It might clarify your thinking on this subject.

yes, I know that Brahman is the divine, atman is the self, or the "god/self" if you will.
Is that how you understand it? The divine within, perhaps deep within, is a common theme, the inner light, the still small voice

[°Leprechaun]

Simply put, it is the word "person" which makes no sense to me. Saying God can be divided into three, is very different than saying God is three persons. It is the latter which I can't understand not the former. I would repeat, it is polytheistic. Three does not equal one.

You should look into the Eastern ideas of atman and Brahman. It might clarify your thinking on this subject.

yes, I know that Brahman is the divine, atman is the self, or the "god/self" if you will.
Is that how you understand it? The divine within, perhaps deep within, is a common theme, the inner light, the still small voice

also cf the 11th step of the famous 12 steps - meditation and prayer,, to find a conscious contact with god (or "higher power")

[Mopsus]

You should look into the Eastern ideas of atman and Brahman. It might clarify your thinking on this subject.

yes, I know that Brahman is the divine, atman is the self, or the "god/self" if you will.
Is that how you understand it? The divine within, perhaps deep within, is a common theme, the inner light, the still small voice

Yes. The idea is that if you strip away the ego, which is "difference", you'll find that every soul is indistinguishable from Brahma. Can you see any way that that might apply to this discussion?