Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:Okay so if we don't put a number on human, and we don't put a number on God, and we concludde human consists of 4 billion persons; and God consists of 3 persons, doesn't that imply polytheism?

Why would the plurality of Persons within the Godhead imply polytheism, Ken?

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay so if we don't put a number on human, and we don't put a number on God, and we concludde human consists of 4 billion persons; and God consists of 3 persons, doesn't that imply polytheism?

Why would the plurality of Persons within the Godhead imply polytheism, Ken?

Going with the comparisons he laid out, if plurality within humankind consists of multiple individual human persons, I was asking if plurality within God consists of multiple individual God persons. More than one individual God person implies polytheism, right?

Ken

Kenny wrote:More than one individual God person implies polytheism, right?

That's what I'm asking you. Why would "more than one individual God person imply polytheism"? We can't answer your question until we know what your unstated premises are. That's not in the least bit anything like a slam or intended to dismiss your question. We all have unstated premises. That's the nature of communication. But if we're going to talk about something like the Trinity, then it's very important that as many of our premises be said plainly as is possible.

So, again, why would more than one individual God person imply polytheism?

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:More than one individual God person implies polytheism, right?

That's what I'm asking you. Why would "more than one individual God person imply polytheism"? We can't answer your question until we know what your unstated premises are. That's not in the least bit anything like a slam or intended to dismiss your question. We all have unstated premises. That's the nature of communication. But if we're going to talk about something like the Trinity, then it's very important that as many of our premises be said plainly as is possible.

So, again, why would more than one individual God person imply polytheism?

Polytheism is the worship of multiple Gods. If Christians worship more than one God person, that's polytheism.

Ken

There is only one God. Christians don't worship more than one.

Jac3510 wrote:There is only one God. Christians don't worship more than one.

Exactly! That's why I was struggling with the analogy he presented.

Ken

Where did Paul offer an analogy? I just saw him say that all three persons are the same God and make an argument from the nature of love that there must be a plurality of persons within the Godhead. I'm failing to see the problem.

Jac3510 wrote:Where did Paul offer an analogy? I just saw him say that all three persons are the same God and make an argument from the nature of love that there must be a plurality of persons within the Godhead. I'm failing to see the problem.

I don't think he explained it quite that way and I don't think he used the term "Godhead". He said, just like you cannot put a number on human, you can't put a number on God. He said God consists of 3 persons, and I pointed out that human consists of 4 billion persons.

BTW I've always considered the term "Godhead" as a title when refering to the 3 members of the trinity. Is it more than that? Or is it just a another term for Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Where did Paul offer an analogy? I just saw him say that all three persons are the same God and make an argument from the nature of love that there must be a plurality of persons within the Godhead. I'm failing to see the problem.

I don't think he explained it quite that way and I don't think he used the term "Godhead". He said, just like you cannot put a number on human, you can't put a number on God. He said God consists of 3 persons, and I pointed out that human consists of 4 billion persons.

BTW I've always considered the term "Godhead" as a title when refering to the 3 members of the trinity. Is it more than that? Or is it just a another term for Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Ken

Lets try it this way:
Human is a term used to refer to/identify a species, ok with that part?
Great.
God is a term used to refer to/identify a species in which there is only ONE of that species.
The ONE being has three distinct identities ( perhaps person is where you are getting mixed up on).

There is only ONE type of that species of being in the universe and the ONE is comprised of 3 consciousness.

Does that help so far?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Where did Paul offer an analogy? I just saw him say that all three persons are the same God and make an argument from the nature of love that there must be a plurality of persons within the Godhead. I'm failing to see the problem.

I don't think he explained it quite that way and I don't think he used the term "Godhead". He said, just like you cannot put a number on human, you can't put a number on God. He said God consists of 3 persons, and I pointed out that human consists of 4 billion persons.

BTW I've always considered the term "Godhead" as a title when refering to the 3 members of the trinity. Is it more than that? Or is it just a another term for Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Ken

Lets try it this way:
Human is a term used to refer to/identify a species, ok with that part?
Great.
God is a term used to refer to/identify a species in which there is only ONE of that species.
The ONE being has three distinct identities ( perhaps person is where you are getting mixed up on).

There is only ONE type of that species of being in the universe and the ONE is comprised of 3 consciousness.

Does that help so far?

Lol, Paul I think you need to stop making analogies, you're not helping.

LMAO !
Fair enough.
One of the longest and most debated classes we have when I was going for my Masters in Theology was the Trinity.
It was amazing how many different ways people came to accept it.
Mine was the relational aspect of God, as I mentioned before, but other people came to it in different ways.
That said, no one simply accepted it because they were told to.

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Where did Paul offer an analogy? I just saw him say that all three persons are the same God and make an argument from the nature of love that there must be a plurality of persons within the Godhead. I'm failing to see the problem.

I don't think he explained it quite that way and I don't think he used the term "Godhead". He said, just like you cannot put a number on human, you can't put a number on God. He said God consists of 3 persons, and I pointed out that human consists of 4 billion persons.

BTW I've always considered the term "Godhead" as a title when refering to the 3 members of the trinity. Is it more than that? Or is it just a another term for Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Ken

Well a few things . . .

1. I don't know if he used the word "consist" or you did, but it would be inappropriate to apply it to God, and I don't think it fits the point you are making about "human" either. "Human" does not consist of billions of people. There are billions of human beings, but the concept of "human" is what it is whether there is one or one million or one trillion humans. It is what it is even if there are no humans at all, for that matter. What you are dealing with is what philosophers refer to as the "universal," and the question is, how does a universal relate to real objects?

2. Following the discussion about universals, I would not talk about it in the way Paul did. God is not a "species." Now, I fully expect that Paul isn't trying to use that in a technical sense. He's probably trying to make an analogy, but I don't happen to find it particularly helpful, since the analogy would suggest that the "species" of God would fall under the category of a larger genera, which is not true. The proper language is to say that God is an essence, and universals are properly understood to refer to essences. So the word "God" refers to the essence of God. And the word "human" refers to the essence of humans. Now, because of the human nature, it is such that every human being is one person. I want to emphasize: that is necessarily true due to human nature. We cannot speak of a human as more than one person anymore than we can speak of a triangle with five sides (and yes, that applies to people with multiple personalities). It is a mistake, then, to take this aspect of human nature--its numerical identity of the person with the being--as if in God where there are three persons there must be three beings. God's nature has no such limitation. On the contrary, because of His nature, God is such that God is three Persons; all three persons are identical in every respect except for their relations to one another. You cannot distinguish between them in terms of their wills or intellects, as if the Father has a will and the Son has a will and the Spirit has a will but all three simply line up in perfect harmony. No. In fact, there is numerically one will in God, and the Father, Son, and Spirit all have that same will. The same is true of all the other attributes.

Lastly, back to your OP, the three persons are not three parts of God, as if the Father is 1/3 God and the Son 1/3 God and the Spirit 1/3 God so that when the three are added up they "make up" God. One of the most basic tenants of classical Trinitarian theology is divine simplicity, which says that God is not composed of any kind of parts whatsoever. So there is not a part of God called the Father and another part called the Son. There is simply the essence that is God, and that essence is hypostatized in one instance as the Father, in another as the Son, and in another as the Spirit. All three Persons are absolutely identical in the simple, and thus indivisible, substance.

2. Following the discussion about universals, I would not talk about it in the way Paul did. God is not a "species." Now, I fully expect that Paul isn't trying to use that in a technical sense. He's probably trying to make an analogy, but I don't happen to find it particularly helpful, since the analogy would suggest that the "species" of God would fall under the category of a larger genera, which is not true. The proper language is to say that God is an essence, and universals are properly understood to refer to essences. So the word "God" refers to the essence of God. And the word "human" refers to the essence of humans. Now, because of the human nature, it is such that every human being is one person. I want to emphasize: that is necessarily true due to human nature. We cannot speak of a human as more than one person anymore than we can speak of a triangle with five sides (and yes, that applies to people with multiple personalities). It is a mistake, then, to take this aspect of human nature--its numerical identity of the person with the being--as if in God where there are three persons there must be three beings. God's nature has no such limitation. On the contrary, because of His nature, God is such that God is three Persons; all three persons are identical in every respect except for their relations to one another. You cannot distinguish between them in terms of their wills or intellects, as if the Father has a will and the Son has a will and the Spirit has a will but all three simply line up in perfect harmony. No. In fact, there is numerically one will in God, and the Father, Son, and Spirit all have that same will. The same is true of all the other attributes.

Perfect.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Where did Paul offer an analogy? I just saw him say that all three persons are the same God and make an argument from the nature of love that there must be a plurality of persons within the Godhead. I'm failing to see the problem.

I don't think he explained it quite that way and I don't think he used the term "Godhead". He said, just like you cannot put a number on human, you can't put a number on God. He said God consists of 3 persons, and I pointed out that human consists of 4 billion persons.

BTW I've always considered the term "Godhead" as a title when refering to the 3 members of the trinity. Is it more than that? Or is it just a another term for Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Ken

Well a few things . . .

1. I don't know if he used the word "consist" or you did, but it would be inappropriate to apply it to God, and I don't think it fits the point you are making about "human" either. "Human" does not consist of billions of people. There are billions of human beings, but the concept of "human" is what it is whether there is one or one million or one trillion humans. It is what it is even if there are no humans at all, for that matter. What you are dealing with is what philosophers refer to as the "universal," and the question is, how does a universal relate to real objects?

2. Following the discussion about universals, I would not talk about it in the way Paul did. God is not a "species." Now, I fully expect that Paul isn't trying to use that in a technical sense. He's probably trying to make an analogy, but I don't happen to find it particularly helpful, since the analogy would suggest that the "species" of God would fall under the category of a larger genera, which is not true. The proper language is to say that God is an essence, and universals are properly understood to refer to essences. So the word "God" refers to the essence of God. And the word "human" refers to the essence of humans. Now, because of the human nature, it is such that every human being is one person. I want to emphasize: that is necessarily true due to human nature. We cannot speak of a human as more than one person anymore than we can speak of a triangle with five sides (and yes, that applies to people with multiple personalities). It is a mistake, then, to take this aspect of human nature--its numerical identity of the person with the being--as if in God where there are three persons there must be three beings. God's nature has no such limitation. On the contrary, because of His nature, God is such that God is three Persons; all three persons are identical in every respect except for their relations to one another. You cannot distinguish between them in terms of their wills or intellects, as if the Father has a will and the Son has a will and the Spirit has a will but all three simply line up in perfect harmony. No. In fact, there is numerically one will in God, and the Father, Son, and Spirit all have that same will. The same is true of all the other attributes.

Lastly, back to your OP, the three persons are not three parts of God, as if the Father is 1/3 God and the Son 1/3 God and the Spirit 1/3 God so that when the three are added up they "make up" God. One of the most basic tenants of classical Trinitarian theology is divine simplicity, which says that God is not composed of any kind of parts whatsoever. So there is not a part of God called the Father and another part called the Son. There is simply the essence that is God, and that essence is hypostatized in one instance as the Father, in another as the Son, and in another as the Spirit. All three Persons are absolutely identical in the simple, and thus indivisible, substance.

So if I understand you correctly, Christians worship 3 persons who are identical in nature, will, thought, etc. All attributes are identical; unlike the polytheist who worships multiple persons whose attributes differ. Because all 3 persons are identical in perfection, nature attributes, etc. That makes them one God. Is that correct?

Ken

Correct, so long as you understand that identity as numerical identity and that furthermore the three Persons are identical even in their very substance. They are distinguished and distinguishable only by their relations to one another. If you can think of any distinction between them other than that, then you have created a false distinction. They literally are the same Being, which you need to understand more specifically is that they are all Existence Itself (the latin phrase is ipsum esse subsistens, which Google will confirm for you means "subsistent existence" or "Being Itself," more literally, "The Subsistent [Act] of Existence Itself").

But more clearly: the Father is Being. The Son is Being. The Spirit is Being. Since they are all Being, you cannot distinguish between them in any way other than their relations one to another, since ALL distinctions are found in something that one entity is or has that another does not. You have your being, I have mine. We are not being itself. You exist where you do. I exist where I do. So I lack existence in your place, whereas you lack existence in mine. I have my ideas, you have yours. I lack the existence of your ideas (for even if I hold the same idea as you do, it is still the idea as existing in my mind, which is existentially distinct from the same idea as it exists in your mine), and the same with yours for me. But none of that applies to the Divine Persons, for they are all Being Itself.

If and when you grasp that, you'll realize why the argument over God's existence is actually patently stupid. To say God does not exist is to say that Existence does not exist, which is self contradictory nonsense. This is why Saint Thomas can say that, to those who have studied, the existence of God is self-evident. To the ignorant, that is, to those who have not studied, it is not self-evident. It is just the same as how someone who has studied mathematics sees that the Pythagorean Theorem is self-evident, but to those who haven't, it is not at all. On the contrary, for such people in their ignorance of the subject matter, the theorem seems odd and in need of proof. But once they see it, they cannot unsee it.

And so it is here, not only with God's existence, but with the Trinity Itself.