Why the Christian Trinity Model of God is Logically Impossible

[Thomas II]

I don't know about illogical...Everything seems to have, appears to have, a "beginning", a "middle", and "an end". Energy is transformed, not destroyed...And the process is continued...These appearances are relative to our perception, so it might have a psychological appeal. One could say that it's all one continuum...

I don't see the relevance of any of this to the logic of the trinity. You are welcome to clarify.

Religion is a matter of preference, and I'm not religious at all...So I'll pass.

 

[southernhybrid]

The trinity concept is a common old myth, as others here have stated. It's even a part of the relatively recent ( mid 1800s ) Baha'i Faith. Baha'is have the Bab, who was the forerunner of the central prophet. Then there was the main dude, aka Baha'u'llah, and then his son, Abdul Baha. He was sort of like the Jesus character. He even visited the US preaching love, racial harmony and world peace. What an optimist! Mythology is full of similarities, so perhaps there is something about humans and the number 3. Are there any female trinity like myths out there? That would be interesting.

Religious mythology is interesting, especially when one considers the similarities in so many of the supernatural myths.

 

[skepticalbip]

Aquinas tried to reconcile philosophy with Catholic theology. He was a Vatican theology 'hit man'. He traveled around debating contrary views.

He was said to be morbidly obese as we say today.

What the fuck does Aquinus's alleged obesity have to do with anything?

Why would any reasonable person raise this non-sequitur?

WTAF?

The why was the resolution of theological differences between sects and establishing a common theology.

I see. And exactly how did Aquinus's body weight resolve those differences?

Aquinas would sit on anyone who tried to offer a counter argument so he was never successfully defeated in a religious debate.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It is obvious, the holy three'. God, Jesus, and the spirit.

What's obvious?

The Trinity is not 'logically impossible', it is simply a way to describe the fundamntal beliefs.

All you did was post some information about how the doctrine of the Christian trinity developed. You didn't address its logical validity. If you wish to try to demonstrate how the trinity is logically valid, then a good place to start is to explain how it's possible that the Holy Ghost is God, and God is the Father, but the Holy Ghost isn't the Father.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Aquinas tried to reconcile philosophy with Catholic theology. He was a Vatican theology 'hit man'. He traveled around debating contrary views.

He was said to be morbidly obese as we say today.

What the fuck does Aquinus's alleged obesity have to do with anything?

Why would any reasonable person raise this non-sequitur?

WTAF?

I share your bewilderment, but allow me to point out that the fallacy posted about Aquinas is more of a red herring than a non sequitur. In other words, how heavy Aquinas was is irrelevant to the logical validity of his arguments.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Aquinas would sit on anyone who tried to offer a counter argument so he was never successfully defeated in a religious debate.

As far as I know there is no correlation between the weight of a debater and the relative frequency of his or her victories in debates.

 

[skepticalbip]

Aquinas would sit on anyone who tried to offer a counter argument so he was never successfully defeated in a religious debate.

As far as I know there is no correlation between the weight of a debater and the relative frequency of his or her victories in debates.

You do understand that it was sarcastic humor don't you?

The only way that I could imagine weight being relevant in a debate is if it was used by sitting on the opposition to physically force submission.

 

[Politesse]

It is obvious, the holy three'. God, Jesus, and the spirit.

What's obvious?

The Trinity is not 'logically impossible', it is simply a way to describe the fundamntal beliefs.

All you did was post some information about how the doctrine of the Christian trinity developed. You didn't address its logical validity. If you wish to try to demonstrate how the trinity is logically valid, then a good place to start is to explain how it's possible that the Holy Ghost is God, and God is the Father, but the Holy Ghost isn't the Father.

It is obviously possible for one entity to have multiple, non-overlapping qualities. The fact that I am a volunteer docent has no bearing on the fact that I am also a professor. Those are different functions. A docent is not a professor. But I am certainly both. This is in no way confusing, let alone a challenge to logic itself.

You've misunderstood the transitive property, and it's all the more ironic that you're unwittingly quoting Thomistic logic as your source of authority anyway, as several have been gently trying to point out to you, given Aquinas' own fairly radical and dogmatic positions on the Trinity.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe morbidly obese is an exaggeration, he is depicted more as portly. All that pasta and wine.

He is said to have bemoaned his weight.

According to The Dumb Ox by Chesterton in one case when he went into residence at a particular place they had to widen some of the doors for him.

Hey, I didn't bring Aquinas into the discussion so don't complain.

 

[steve_bank]

Soldier

There is no logic to the Trinity, it is a definition formally defined at Nicea by concencus.

Please explain the illogic you see. Is there a syslogysm yiou can cite or a theological proof?

Fill in the blanks, dazzle us with some logic. Why is the Trinity illogical?

p1 ...
p2 ...
c Therefore the Trinity is illogical

There is plenty to criticize in religion. However you point to something in religion and declare it is not logical or rational, but never actualy flesh out details as to why. You proceed to criticize others who post all the while never saying anything substantive. You argue like a theist.

I am not an expert on the history of Christianity and others here are more knowledgeable. You seem to have little undestanding of Chrtianity other than a shallow 'it is irrational and illogical'.

 

[abaddon]

However you point to something in religion and declare it is not logical or rational, but never actualy flesh out details as to why. You proceed to criticize others who post all the while never saying anything substantive. You argue like a theist.

I am not an expert on the history of Christianity and others here are more knowledgeable. You seem to have little undestanding of Chrtianity other than a shallow 'it is irrational and illogical'.

The problem is he's not representing the beliefs the way Christians would. That comes first before any criticism or it's all bullshit. The OP should have given links and quotes to demonstrate his claim: "Each of these persons are distinct agents having their own unique wills, thoughts, and deeds. So the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Despite these persons being distinct, each one of them is "fully God," and therefore each completely encompasses the one God."

He's already applied logic, but he applied it to a description that's probably not accurate. The description of the belief must be shown to be accurate. That comes first before anything else.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Soldier

There is no logic to the Trinity, it is a definition formally defined at Nicea by concencus.

If there's no logic to the trinity, then we agree.

Please explain the illogic you see. Is there a syslogysm yiou can cite or a theological proof?

I explained my logic in the OP. If you don't understand it there, then you won't get it now.

Fill in the blanks, dazzle us with some logic. Why is the Trinity illogical?

p1 ...
p2 ...
c Therefore the Trinity is illogical

OK, let me try anyway. Consider the following logically sound statement:

(1) America is the United States, and the United States is the USA, so America must be the USA.

Do you see why if America is the United States, and the United States is the USA, then America must be the USA? There's a flow of sameness that goes from "America," through "the United States," and ends up in "the USA." To say America is not the USA would violate (1).

Now, let's try the same logic with the Christian trinity:

(2) The Holy Ghost is God, and God is the Father, so the Holy Ghost must be the Father.

See that? I used the same logical flow of sameness as I did in (1) only with different things. And just like it's not logically consistent to say America is not the USA, it is also logically inconsistent to say that the Holy Spirit is not the Father which the dogma of the trinity states. The trinity doctrine violates the flow of sameness in (2) and is then illogical.

There is plenty to criticize in religion. However you point to something in religion and declare it is not logical or rational, but never actualy flesh out details as to why. You proceed to criticize others who post all the while never saying anything substantive. You argue like a theist.

LOL--I am really bad, am I not? Is it possible, though, that I did "flesh out the details," but you just can't get it? It's possible that I'm going over people's heads with my analysis, and rather than admit that they don't understand my analysis, to save face they complain that I didn't post enough details.

By the way, I'm a mathematician, and I'm using the logic I'm learning in advanced disciplines like real analysis to analyze religious claims for truth. So my logic is valid unless you wish to say that mathematics is not valid.

I am not an expert on the history of Christianity and others here are more knowledgeable.

The focus of the topic I raised in the OP isn't the history of Christianity but the logical validity of the trinity dogma. History isn't very relevant to that topic.

You seem to have little undestanding of Chrtianity other than a shallow 'it is irrational and illogical'.

Ouch! You really know how to hurt a guy. I'd suggest that if you spent more time on understanding the issues and less time with personal attacks, then you'd more likely come to some sound conclusions.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

However you point to something in religion and declare it is not logical or rational, but never actualy flesh out details as to why. You proceed to criticize others who post all the while never saying anything substantive. You argue like a theist.

I am not an expert on the history of Christianity and others here are more knowledgeable. You seem to have little undestanding of Chrtianity other than a shallow 'it is irrational and illogical'.

The problem is he's not representing the beliefs the way Christians would.

My description of the trinity in the OP is the description I'm familiar with. I assumed that description of the trinity was common knowledge.

That comes first before any criticism or it's all bullshit. The OP should have given links and quotes to demonstrate his claim: "Each of these persons are distinct agents having their own unique wills, thoughts, and deeds. So the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Despite these persons being distinct, each one of them is "fully God," and therefore each completely encompasses the one God."

Did you do any research on the trinity doctrine? If so, then where did I go wrong? If not, then why are you accusing me of being wrong? I am sure that there are some variations on the trinity that don't exactly fit the model I posted in the OP, but they are probably unorthodox models of the trinity that few Christians accept.

He's already applied logic, but he applied it to a description that's probably not accurate. The description of the belief must be shown to be accurate. That comes first before anything else.

Probably not accurate? If you don't know if my description is not accurate, then why make a fuss over it?

 

[abaddon]

However you point to something in religion and declare it is not logical or rational, but never actualy flesh out details as to why. You proceed to criticize others who post all the while never saying anything substantive. You argue like a theist.

I am not an expert on the history of Christianity and others here are more knowledgeable. You seem to have little undestanding of Chrtianity other than a shallow 'it is irrational and illogical'.

The problem is he's not representing the beliefs the way Christians would.

My description of the trinity in the OP is the description I'm familiar with. I assumed that description of the trinity was common knowledge.

That comes first before any criticism or it's all bullshit. The OP should have given links and quotes to demonstrate his claim: "Each of these persons are distinct agents having their own unique wills, thoughts, and deeds. So the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Despite these persons being distinct, each one of them is "fully God," and therefore each completely encompasses the one God."

Did you do any research on the trinity doctrine? If so, then where did I go wrong? If not, then why are you accusing me of being wrong? I am sure that there are some variations on the trinity that don't exactly fit the model I posted in the OP, but they are probably unorthodox models of the trinity that few Christians accept.

He's already applied logic, but he applied it to a description that's probably not accurate. The description of the belief must be shown to be accurate. That comes first before anything else.

Probably not accurate? If you don't know if my description is not accurate, then why make a fuss over it?

If YOU don't know that your description of the trinity is accurate, then why are YOU making a fuss over it?

You need to provide a quote of what you're criticizing so that people know how well or badly the criticism works without having to do your homework on the religious beliefs for you.

---

ETA: I agree that the trinity is a self-contradictory idea. But what I've read, as silly as it is, still isn't as bad as your misdescription.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Let me start out by explaining the Christian trinitarian version of God. This model is said to be monotheistic which is to say that it is based on one and only one God existing. Nevertheless, this one God is made up of three "persons" including the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Ghost. Each of these persons are distinct agents having their own unique wills, thoughts, and deeds. So the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Despite these persons being distinct, each one of them is "fully God," and therefore each completely encompasses the one God.

Now, in logic there is a very important principle which can be called the Transitive Property of Equivalence. This principle states that
if A is B, and B is C, then A is C.
For example, if Ed is Ted, and Ted is Theodore, then Ed is Theodore. In the trinitarian model of God, the Son is God, God is the Father, but the Son is not the Father! Similarly, the Holy Ghost is God, God is the Son, but the Holy Ghost is not the Son. So the trinitarian model of God is logically fallacious because it violates the Transitive Property of Equivalence.

One way for Christians to resolve this issue is to avow that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate Gods. Christianity resembles so closely polytheism that recognizing the trinity as three Gods wouldn't make much difference to Christian theology anyway. Besides, a polytheistic model of the trinity like I said resolves the logical fallacy in the dogma of the trinity.

It is so simple: If A can clone itself, then, A can be A and A and A. But to avoid confusion, A had used three names. A , B, and C.

 

[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'.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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:


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.

 

[bilby]

Soldier

There is no logic to the Trinity, it is a definition formally defined at Nicea by concencus.

If there's no logic to the trinity, then we agree.

Please explain the illogic you see. Is there a syslogysm yiou can cite or a theological proof?

I explained my logic in the OP. If you don't understand it there, then you won't get it now.

Fill in the blanks, dazzle us with some logic. Why is the Trinity illogical?

p1 ...
p2 ...
c Therefore the Trinity is illogical

OK, let me try anyway. Consider the following logically sound statement:

(1) America is the United States, and the United States is the USA, so America must be the USA.

Do you see why if America is the United States, and the United States is the USA, then America must be the USA? There's a flow of sameness that goes from "America," through "the United States," and ends up in "the USA." To say America is not the USA would violate (1).

Now, let's try the same logic with the Christian trinity:

(2) The Holy Ghost is God, and God is the Father, so the Holy Ghost must be the Father.

See that? I used the same logical flow of sameness as I did in (1) only with different things. And just like it's not logically consistent to say America is not the USA, it is also logically inconsistent to say that the Holy Spirit is not the Father which the dogma of the trinity states. The trinity doctrine violates the flow of sameness in (2) and is then illogical.

There is plenty to criticize in religion. However you point to something in religion and declare it is not logical or rational, but never actualy flesh out details as to why. You proceed to criticize others who post all the while never saying anything substantive. You argue like a theist.

LOL--I am really bad, am I not? Is it possible, though, that I did "flesh out the details," but you just can't get it? It's possible that I'm going over people's heads with my analysis, and rather than admit that they don't understand my analysis, to save face they complain that I didn't post enough details.

By the way, I'm a mathematician, and I'm using the logic I'm learning in advanced disciplines like real analysis to analyze religious claims for truth. So my logic is valid unless you wish to say that mathematics is not valid.

I am not an expert on the history of Christianity and others here are more knowledgeable.

The focus of the topic I raised in the OP isn't the history of Christianity but the logical validity of the trinity dogma. History isn't very relevant to that topic.

You seem to have little undestanding of Chrtianity other than a shallow 'it is irrational and illogical'.

Ouch! You really know how to hurt a guy. I'd suggest that if you spent more time on understanding the issues and less time with personal attacks, then you'd more likely come to some sound conclusions.

The USA is The United States; The United States is America; But America isn't the USA. America is two entre continents, of which the USA is a small part.

I don't think your example is demonstrating your position - in fact, I think your example is very clearly and effectively demonstrating why your position is false.

The trinity is nonsensical insofar as it depends upon the nonsensical idea that gods are a real thing. But if we accept that premise ad argumentum, the trinity itself isn't in any way illogical - unless it's explicitly defined so as to be illogical.

The problem you're up against isn't that your logic is flawed, so much as that your premises haven't been demonstrated to be those of the people you are seeking to disprove.

You have defeated a strawman - or at least, you have failed to demonstrate that your target isn't a strawman of your own construction.

I don't know what the various trinitarian positions are; Perhaps you have an excellent argument against some or all of them - but you have yet to persuade me of that.

 

[bilby]

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.

People don't usually express ideas as statements of pure logic. The word "is" doesn't only and always mean "is exactly equal to".

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.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The USA is The United States; The United States is America; But America isn't the USA. America is two entre continents, of which the USA is a small part.

America is the USA.

I don't think your example is demonstrating your position - in fact, I think your example is very clearly and effectively demonstrating why your position is false.

You can think whatever you like no matter how wrong it is.

The trinity is nonsensical insofar as it depends upon the nonsensical idea that gods are a real thing. But if we accept that premise ad argumentum, the trinity itself isn't in any way illogical - unless it's explicitly defined so as to be illogical.

You don't need to prove that Gods aren't real to see that the doctrine of the trinity is illogical. That's what makes my argument so powerful.

The problem you're up against isn't that your logic is flawed, so much as that your premises haven't been demonstrated to be those of the people you are seeking to disprove.

Logic can be valid even if the premises are false. Since you aren't even investigating those premises, I must conclude that you're not genuinely interested in my argument but are hoping you can derail it with a "wave of your hands." (That's what's known as the fallacious "hand-waving" argument.)

You have defeated a strawman - or at least, you have failed to demonstrate that your target isn't a strawman of your own construction.

You don't know enough about the dogma of the trinity to know if I've posted a strawman. Get educated about it, know what you're talking about, and then tell me honestly whether or not it's a strawman.

I don't know what the various trinitarian positions are;

In that case you can't tell if I'm posting a strawman!

Perhaps you have an excellent argument against some or all of them - but you have yet to persuade me of that.

Why all this willful ignorance? Are you upset that the dogma of the trinity is proved to be illogical?