Why the Christian Trinity Model of God is Logically Impossible

[Unknown Soldier]

Replace the labels in your diagram as follows:

Swap 'God' with 'United Kingdom'

Swap 'The Father' with 'England'

Swap 'The Son' with 'Scotland'

Swap 'The Holy Spirit' with 'Northern Ireland'

Now you have a diagram that has changed only by changing the labels, and that represents an accurate description of reality with which few people would disagree (other than on political grounds).

England is the UK. Scotland is the UK. Northern Ireland is the UK. But England is not Scotland. Scotland is not Northern Ireland. And Northern Ireland is not England.

This isn't logically inconsistent; It's just a set of true statements that rely on the word "is" having more than one meaning. That could be a big problem in pure logic, but it's a commonplace and perfectly acceptable situation in the English language.

And so you need to show that trinitarians are attempting to make a claim in pure logic, and not, as a charitable interpretation of their claims would indicate, making a set of reasonable claims in plain English.

Your analogy doesn't fit because in the dogma of the trinity, each of the three persons is "fully God." Scotland and Northern Ireland are not "fully the United Kingdom." So it is incorrect to say that the United Kingdom is Scotland or that it is Ireland! By contrast, it is correct to say that each of the three persons of the trinity is God.

My advice to you is to study math. I'm a mathematician, and my studies help me a lot to use "relational logic." The transitive property of equality in particular applies to this discussion:

If a = b, and b = c, then a = c.

The fallacious logic of the trinity if applied to numbers would go like this:

a = b, and b = c, but a ≠ c!

I hope I made myself clear.

 

[bilby]

Replace the labels in your diagram as follows:

Swap 'God' with 'United Kingdom'

Swap 'The Father' with 'England'

Swap 'The Son' with 'Scotland'

Swap 'The Holy Spirit' with 'Northern Ireland'

Now you have a diagram that has changed only by changing the labels, and that represents an accurate description of reality with which few people would disagree (other than on political grounds).

England is the UK. Scotland is the UK. Northern Ireland is the UK. But England is not Scotland. Scotland is not Northern Ireland. And Northern Ireland is not England.

This isn't logically inconsistent; It's just a set of true statements that rely on the word "is" having more than one meaning. That could be a big problem in pure logic, but it's a commonplace and perfectly acceptable situation in the English language.

And so you need to show that trinitarians are attempting to make a claim in pure logic, and not, as a charitable interpretation of their claims would indicate, making a set of reasonable claims in plain English.

Your analogy doesn't fit because in the dogma of the trinity, each of the three persons is "fully God." Scotland and Northern Ireland are not "fully the United Kingdom." So it is incorrect to say that the United Kingdom is Scotland or that it is Ireland! By contrast, it is correct to say that each of the three persons of the trinity is God.

My advice to you is to study math. I'm a mathematician, and my studies help me a lot to use "relational logic." The transitive property of equality in particular applies to this discussion:

If a = b, and b = c, then a = c.

The fallacious logic of the trinity if applied to numbers would go like this:

a = b, and b = c, but a ≠ c!

I hope I made myself clear.

My advice to you is to recognise that mathematics doesn't apply to language.

You're using a tool because you're familiar with it, not because it's the correct tool for the job.

That's not going to work.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

My advice to you is to recognise that mathematics doesn't apply to language.

You're using a tool because you're familiar with it, not because it's the correct tool for the job.

That's not going to work.

That's another fallacious handwaving argument. Contrary to what you say, mathematics is a language that applies very well (for the most part) to things like persons, Gods, and apples. In particular, "=" can replace "is." Let me show you:

If a = b, and b = c, then a = c.
If the Son is God, and God is the Father, then the Son is the Father.

On the other hand, it's fallacious to say:

If a = b, and b = c, but a ≠ c.
If the Son is God, and God is the Father, then but the Son is not the Father.

And that's where the dogma of the trinity goes wrong logically speaking. I can't make it any clearer than that. If you still don't get it, then study some math.

 

[steve_bank]

You are misapplying logic.

God and Jesus are separate entities. Nowhere in theology does God =Jesus = Holy Ghost. The term Trinity does not apply equivalence or equality. The Holy Ghost or spirit is a perceptual experience of the presense of god.

Jesus as a demigod is the offspring of a god and human. Christians believe in heaven they will be with both god and Jesus. Jesus sits 'at the right hand of god'.

Here's a diagram of the trinity that I base my model on:

View attachment 37140
As you should be able to see, this diagram fits well my description of the trinity in the OP. Note that the top of the diagram illustrates that the Father is not the Son, but right below that the Father is said to be God, and God is the Son. Logically, then, the Father is the Son which contradicts the claim that they are different.

There in lies the rub. It is how you see and interpret theology, We could drill down into the New Testament, and we would end up debating theology like the Christians do.

I think a Venn Diagram would be a better depiction.


Catholic catechism.

266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory ...

Explaining the Trinity

In Catholic theology, we understand the persons of the Blessed Trinity subsisting within the inner life of God to be truly distinct relationally, but not as a matter of essence, or nature.

www.catholic.com

Recently, I had an extensive discussion with a Muslim about the Trinity. His problem with the Trinity was not so much with biblical texts, and obviously so, because he did not accept the Bible in the form it is in today as the word of God. Though I must say that he was remarkably interested in looking at what the New Testament had to say about the topic.
His main problem was conceptual. And I find this to be generally the case with folks who reject the Trinity. They either think Christians are claiming there are three Gods (which is what my Muslim friend actually believed to be so), or that we are teaching something that is a logical contradiction, e.g., 3=1, and 1=3.
Neither is true, of course. But if we are going to help these people to understand, I find, a little background information is essential in order to establish a conceptual foundation for discussion.

Processions and Relations in God​

In Catholic theology, we understand the persons of the Blessed Trinity subsisting within the inner life of God to be truly distinct relationally, but not as a matter of essence, or nature. Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other.


In order to understand the concept of person in God, we have to understand its foundation in the processions and relations within the inner life of God. And the Council of Florence, AD 1338-1445, can help us in this regard.


The Council’s definitions concerning the Trinity are really as easy as one, two, three… four. It taught there is one nature in God, and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. These are those four eternal relations in God:

1. The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of God, the Father.
2. The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
3. The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other in the first two relations. This is why CCC 240 teaches, “[The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity] is Son only in relation to his Father.”
4. The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.

We should take note of the distinction between the “generative” procession that constitutes the Son, and the “spirative” procession that constitutes the Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and Scripture reveals, the Son is uniquely “begotten” of the Father (cf. John 3:16; 1:18). He is also said to proceed from the Father as “the Word” in John 1:1. This “generative” procession is one of “begetting,” but not in the same way a dog “begets” a dog, or a human being “begets” a human being. This is an intellectual “begetting,” and fittingly so, as a “word” proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son occurs within the inner life of God. There are not “two beings” involved; rather, two persons relationally distinct, while ever-remaining one in being.


The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. “Spiration” comes from the Latin word for “spirit” or “breath.” Jesus “breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit…” (John 20:22). Scripture reveals the Holy Spirit as pertaining to “God’s love [that] has been poured into our hearts” in Romans 5:5, and as flowing out of and identified with the reciprocating love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father (John 15:26; Rev. 22:1-2). Thus, the Holy Spirit’s procession is not intellectual and generative, but has its origin in God’s will and in the ultimate act of the will, which is love.

An example of academic theology. High quality mythology, analogous to the literary quality of Lord Of The Rings.

You can read the entire dissertation. Given the three distinctions exist as an assumption, then I doubt Ctatholoic catechism has any logical holes. Theologians worked on it for centuries to make it logically consistent.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You can read the entire dissertation. Given the three distinctions exist as an assumption, then I doubt Ctatholoic catechism has any logical holes. Theologians worked on it for centuries to make it logically consistent.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but again, I made my case for the logical impossibility of the trinity in the OP citing the most common understanding of that doctrine. I never intended to discuss the theology of the trinity, nor did I wish to debate all the variations on the idea of the trinity. So what you've been posting is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. If you wish to debate that topic, then please critique what I stated in the OP, preferably by posting direct quotations from the OP explaining in your own words in clear detail what you think I may have gotten wrong or right about the logic of the trinity. I prefer you not just parrot what others have said about the trinity by copying and pasting text into your posts. If you do copy and paste information from others, then make sure it's relevant to the logic of the trinity, and explain why you agree or disagree with it. If you don't do so, then I won't respond to your posts.

 

[Politesse]

citing the most common understanding of that doctrine

I'm baffled as to what this could mean, when the entire world is divided into divergent camps with very different ideas about the trinity, or rejection thereof, even if only Christians are being examined. In particular, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity seems to be attracting your special ire here, but that's bizarre, as Roman Catholics constitute an overwhelming majority of the Trinitarian Christian world. If there is a "most common understanding" of the Trinity, how could it (logically) be any other understanding than that which the Vatican promotes to great success? If you don't want to talk about the Trinity in terms of comparative theology, that's fine, but starting a forum thread on the topic seems like a pretty strange strategy for avoiding that fate.

 

[steve_bank]

You can read the entire dissertation. Given the three distinctions exist as an assumption, then I doubt Ctatholoic catechism has any logical holes. Theologians worked on it for centuries to make it logically consistent.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but again, I made my case for the logical impossibility of the trinity in the OP citing the most common understanding of that doctrine. I never intended to discuss the theology of the trinity, nor did I wish to debate all the variations on the idea of the trinity. So what you've been posting is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. If you wish to debate that topic, then please critique what I stated in the OP, preferably by posting direct quotations from the OP explaining in your own words in clear detail what you think I may have gotten wrong or right about the logic of the trinity. I prefer you not just parrot what others have said about the trinity by copying and pasting text into your posts. If you do copy and paste information from others, then make sure it's relevant to the logic of the trinity, and explain why you agree or disagree with it. If you don't do so, then I won't respond to your posts.

And my response was, is, and will be that it is not logical it is a definition not subject to logic. Mythology and relgion like good scifi iare not 'logical'. It is not intended to be.