Canuckster1127 wrote:That argument can be applied to tritheism as well. Further, it doesn't prove three.
1. It cannot be applied to tritheism, for tritheism has three perfect beings, which is philosophically absurd. That which is perfect lacks absolutely nothing. Yet to be different is to be different by something. If two (or three, or more) beings are absolutely equivalent in every way, lacking absolutely nothing, then they differ by nothing, meaning they are actually the same. This is well established and known as Leibniz' Law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals, and is more technically stated thus:
(x)(y)[(x=y)->(P)(Px<-->Py)]
which can be read as follows: For any x and for any y, if "they" are identical to each other, then for any property P, P will be true of x if and only if P is true of y. Or, you could but the law this way:
(x)(y) [(x=y)->*(x=y)]
which can be read as follows: for all x and y, if x is identical to y, then, necessarily, x is identical to y.
So, again, no, the argument I posited most certainly cannot be applied to tritheism, for, by definition, there can only be one perfect Being.
2. I never said that the argument proves three persons. I spoke only of a plurality. I'm fine with the fact that we lack sufficient information from nature itself to conclude that the plurality in the Godhead is limited to Three Persons. For that, we need Scripture. However, again, we do not need the first word of Scripture to prove that there is a plurality of persons within the Godhead, however many that may be.
All human arguments, including the one you posit, break down at some level on a purely rational basis.
Then show me where mine breaks down. Assertions arguments do not make. Of course, I could turn your assertion back on you . . . does the argument that all human arguments eventually break down on some purely rational level itself eventually break down on some purely rational level? Such a statement seems rather self-defeating, to me.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the argument. It ties to my views in terms of perichorises and I'm all for using every rational means to come to an understanding of the person and nature of God to the greatest extent possible. I'll draw the line, without apology, at asserting that God can be fully understood on a purely rational basis. The infinite cannot be fully understood by the finite without breaking down somewhere.
Ah, I learned a new word: perichoresis. Much obliged. It's always nice to learn something new
As to your line, doesn't it take a rational comprehension of a thing to declare that it can or cannot be rationally comprehended? To say something is impossible to be understood, even fully, seems to me like saying, "It is impossible to have any knowledge of X." Of course, in so saying, you are asserting some level of knowledge about X . . .
In any case, even if you are right that God can't be fully understood, that's beside the point, as I've hardly argued that I fully understand God. I've simply argued that the Trinity is not some mysterious notion that can only be argued for, understood, and accepted on faith. Quite the contrary, it is rather easy to grasp and prove once you have studied a bit of metaphysics. Forgive me if that sounds at all arrogant. I just don't see why anyone has any trouble with it, anymore than I see why anyone has any trouble with any other concept in reality, such as the need for justice, the need for Christ's death and resurrection, the necessity of God's existence, or any other such idea.
There's a certain underlying arrogance (and I'm applying this to the position, not to you personally Chris, as I know such is not your intent) in presuming that no mystery exists in the person and existence of God. It assumes that God is familiar and reducable to the understanding of a finite man. Frankly, I think it elevates man and reduces God in a manner that is inconsistent with what I know of Christ and understand in the scriptures.
I would agree with this. Of course, I'm sure you are aware that classical theology, far from asserting that there is no mystery in God, actually asserts that in the end, God is pure mystery. That is, classical theology asserts that we can never know what God is at all, but rather only what He is not. Put still differently, classical theology ultimately embraces what is known as negative theology.
One quote from Aquinas should be sufficient to demonstrate the point:
- When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.
I would venture to say that philosophers take the mystery of God far more seriously than most theologians, in that most theologians actually think they know something about who or what God actually
is, failing to recognize, as they do, that all that can be said about positively God is analogical at best. So yes, I agree with you here. There is mystery in God. A great mystery, in fact! But the mystery is certainly nothing like the Trinity.
One can certainly go too far in the other direction and emphasize mystery to the marginalization of rationality. That's not a desirable situation either.
Yes, quite right. I say, we are on a roll of agreement.
I'll choose to reject either extreme and accept that there is an inherent tension between the rational and the irrational (or the hidden if you prefer that term) and that indeed includes mystery, of which at some point faith is indeed involved.
I'm not comfortable with the term "tension." And while I much prefer "hidden" to "irrational" (it is quite a stretch to refer to anything about God as irrational!), I see no problems of any kind between what is known rationally and what cannot be known at all, rationally or otherwise. Now, there are certain things that could not have been known about God unless He chose to reveal them to us. In fact, to be technical, the only things we know about God is that which He has chosen to reveal to us. Some things we know from general revelation, some from special, some from both, but that doesn't mean that which is known from general is rational and that which is known from special is non-rational, knowable only by faith. To the contrary, I find faith deeply rational. Let's take an argument for the Trinity:
1. The Bible, being infallible, is always correct;
2. The Bible teaches that God is a Trinity;
3. Therefore, God is a Trinity.
Now if that isn't a rational argument, I don't know what is. I don't have to accept (2) on faith. I can see it with my own eyeballs. I don't even have to accept (1) on faith. It is provable this way:
1. Jesus, being God, is infallible, and is thus always right;
2. Jesus teaches that the Bible is always right;
3. Therefore, the Bible is always right.
Again, I don't need to accept (2) on faith. It is a matter of historical record. I don't have to accept (1) on faith, either, as it is a matter of historical record, which can be demonstrated via the Resurrection.
My point to all this is that I see a false distinction between that which is of rationality and that which is of faith. Faith is simply that which accepts something as true. Everything any of us know about Jesus and God and anything else, spiritual or physical, we know because we have
learned it and have been given
reason to believe it. Perhaps the reasons upon which we assented are bad reasons. Perhaps our beliefs are unjustified, but we still reached them by employing our mental faculties
Anyway, I'm not sure where you would fall in with all of this. I just hope that people like teixidoj don't walk away from this thread with the idea that they can't really know if things like the Trinity are true, but instead, must simply embrace them in a shear act of faith. Peter says to always be ready with a reason, not to always be ready with a testimony of faith.
God bless
