From Creator of the Universe to Triune god

[DMB]

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there might be something that could be referred to as the Creator of the Universe -- some sort of incomprehensible intelligence that pervades all existence.

Now how do we make the leap from that to the triune god of Christianity? Why believe in the Son element, for which the only reference is some passages in one ancient scripture? Looking on from the outside, it looks like a house of cards.

[Berthold]

Especially nice is the dogma that The Son existed backward in eternity before His birth.

[Ray Moscow]

Shhh ... let the apologists carry on snowing the majority of the human race.

Once a possibility of some sort of God is established, the rest [whichever of the many thousands of contradictory religions doctrines is being sold] follows necessarily.

[Alex]

The notion of a divine triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion but not a unique feature. Other religions also have trinitarian groups.

[premjan]

The Trinity has something to do with three philosophical positions or three parts of the mind or something like that. It keeps getting repeated. Either there are trinities or there are three religious sects or three philosophies etc.

[hecaterin]

All sorts of things come in threes in Western culture. Three fates, three norns, three graces, three fairy tale brothers or sisters (and the youngest wins the adventure), three bears, three little pigs... Does anyone know if this pattern extends to other cultures?

[DMB]

It is certainly possible to build significance into any numbers (hence shedloads of woo). See this Green Grow the Rushes, O - I've seen a few interpretations that are missing from the Wiki article.

[lpetrich]

I don't think that there is anything special about the number three here -- it's a small number, it's fairly easy to remember small numbers of something.

As to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, that was settled in some very nasty fights, and what was settled on is very murky. I find quantum mechanics much easier to understand that that. But that's because I know the mathematics behind it.

Deacon Duncan has tried to untangle that mess of doctrine in The Trinity Problem (http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2007/12/27/the-trinity-problem/). He notes that some of the proposed solutions are worse than the problem. Officially-heretical solutions like Three Persons sharing a common nature, which implies tritheism, or else modalism, that God sometimes acts as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spook.


My own belief is that the most that can be justified from philosophical or scientific arguments is Deism or something not much different -- a God independent of any church or creed, one that inspired no sacred books and that does not endorse the authority of any religious leader. God would only be understood the way we understand everything else, but reason and evaluation of experience.

As to belief, I follow the policy of Carl Sagan, who did not want to believe, but to know.

[lpetrich]

A common attempt to explain the Trinity is with an analogy with an entity with three parts. Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Spook become three subgods in one god, which seems like tritheism again.

As to mathematics, what is the math behind the Trinity?

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

?

[Berthold]

A common attempt to explain the Trinity is with an analogy with an entity with three parts.
A very rural priest anecdotally is said to have explained to his congregation, "It's like a dungfork; three spikes, but one fork." :D

In this part of the world, dungforks are usually three-spiked. I'm aware it's different elsewhere.

[Notta]

IIRC, in Japanese culture the number three is to be avoided. You don't have three people living in a house, objects are not sold in sets of three, and you don't have three sections to a container or dinner plate.

So I wouldn't think the Japanese would celebrate some sort of triune spirit in Shintoism.

[Alex]

Gibbon is entertaining on the "incomprehensible mystery" of the Trinity:

Three Beings, who by the self-derived necessity of their existence, possess all the divine attributes in the most perfect degree; who are eternal in duration, infinite in space, and intimately present to each other and to the whole universe; irresistibly force themselves on the astonished mind, as one and the same Being.

~ (Chapter XXI : Decline and Fall)

[David B]

I wonder if the Christian three gods in one idea is pinched from Hinduism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

The Trimurti (English: ‘three forms’; Sanskrit: त्रिमूर्ति trimūrti) is a concept in Hinduism "in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahmā the creator, Viṣṇu the maintainer or preserver, and Śiva the destroyer or transformer."[1][2] These three deities have been called "the Hindu triad" [3] or the "Great Trinity". They are often looked at as the creator, preserver and destroyer respectively.

David

[premjan]

The Trimurti is attributed to the Christian era.

[David B]

The Trimurti is attributed to the Christian era.

Not according to the wiki link I posted. Unless I missed it, but I did look for that.

No doubt there was a lot of cross fertilisation of metaphysics in the iron age, and before, by traders, ambassadors etc.

David

[lpetrich]

Or it could be a separate invention. It's easier to remember a small number of things than a large number, and three is a nice small number.

Furthermore, the Trimurti differs from the Xian Trinity in being a division by kind of activity.

[Alex]

Despite the idea having no support in scripture, why do Christians believe there are three persons in one God?

Belief in the Trinity is closely connected with the doctrine of the Incarnation. God "needs" more than one essence if the Word is to be made flesh and dwell amongst us. God the Father wasn't born in a stable in Bethlehem in order to become a carpenter, preacher, and saviour of sinners. The Son of God, second person in the Trinity, was given that mission. And the Holy Ghost, the third person, began to cause Christian effects in the world after Jesus departed from it. So more than one "person" in the Godhead seems necessary if the divine plan is to be carried out.

Jesus has two natures; divine and human. Acting in his human nature, Jesus Christ has a God to whom he prayed. In his divine capacity, Jesus, alias the second person of the Trinity, is worshipped as such by Christians.

I know that I'm not explaining the theological argument, or rigmarole, adequately. Perhaps someone else can make better sense of it.

[DMB]

This thread seems to be turning into a discussion about the historical origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I am really interested in is arguments in favour of the existence of a god. What I don't understand is how one makes the jump from arguing for a creator of universe to identifying that creator as the triune Christian god. Why not a deist god, for example?

[lpetrich]

Or, for that matter, the god(s) of other religions. Jewish and Muslim apologists often use some very familiar arguments, like the First-Cause argument, the Argument from Design, etc. I'm not familiar with Hindu ones, however.

Aristotle, who had likely invented the First-Cause argument, believed in a God who acts as a cosmic mainspring, keeping the Universe going by passive attraction for all eternity. Aristotle's God is not an active Universe-controller; it thinks only about itself. Aristotle even concluded at one point that there could be 47 or 55 such unmoved movers.

[Alex]

This thread seems to be turning into a discussion about the historical origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I am really interested in is arguments in favour of the existence of a god. What I don't understand is how one makes the jump from arguing for a creator of universe to identifying that creator as the triune Christian god. Why not a deist god, for example?

As far as Christianity is concerned, believing in a deist god would not provide theological grounds for the doctrine of the Incarnation - which is central to that belief system. (As I tried to explain above.) Without the theory of the Incarnation, Christianity wouldn't exist.

[DMB]

This thread seems to be turning into a discussion about the historical origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I am really interested in is arguments in favour of the existence of a god. What I don't understand is how one makes the jump from arguing for a creator of universe to identifying that creator as the triune Christian god. Why not a deist god, for example?

As far as Christianity is concerned, believing in a deist god would not provide theological grounds for the doctrine of the Incarnation - which is central to that belief system. (As I tried to explain above.) Without the theory of the Incarnation, Christianity wouldn't exist.

I don't question that, but it doesn't explain how they justify the huge jump. After all, a putative creator of everything may not even be any sort of person, let alone 3.

[Alex]

You asked why a leap is made from a singular deity to a trinity of gods. Without the trinity hypothesis - which I agree requires an even bigger suspension of disbelief than mere deism - the incarnation of the Second Person wouldn't have a doctrinal basis. From the Christian perspective, this very important dogma "justifies the jump".

I regret that I've repeated myself somewhat, but that seems like the best answer to the question in the OP.

[hecaterin]

This thread seems to be turning into a discussion about the historical origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I am really interested in is arguments in favour of the existence of a god. What I don't understand is how one makes the jump from arguing for a creator of universe to identifying that creator as the triune Christian god. Why not a deist god, for example?Frankly, I don't think there is a reason. There must be a god, ergo my god, qed shut up.

[Zebulon]

As to mathematics, what is the math behind the Trinity?

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

?

That only works if 1 + 1 = 0 ;)

[Zebulon]

I don't question that, but it doesn't explain how they justify the huge jump. After all, a putative creator of everything may not even be any sort of person, let alone 3.

It seems that you're looking for a logical explanation, when the historical explanation was much more pragmatic. Constantine wanted to use Christianity to unite the empire, and wasn't too particular about which theology was imposed. Something like the doctrine of the trinity could only be the product of a committee.

[Ray Moscow]

A common attempt to explain the Trinity is with an analogy with an entity with three parts. Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Spook become three subgods in one god, which seems like tritheism again.

As to mathematics, what is the math behind the Trinity?

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

?

I've actually heard it argued that 1 X 1 X 1 = 1!:)

[Zebulon]

It has been a long time since I had Abstract Algebra, but one can define a ring such that

1 + 1 + 1 = 0

Maybe that's the real meaning of the trinity! ;)

[DMB]

I am not asking how the doctrine of the trinity came about historically, but modern Christians will still use various arguments to "prove" that the universe must have a creator. How do they then justify the intellectual leap of equating this supposed creator to the triune Christian god? I find this very puzzling. I have found quite a few using "uncaused cause" arguments and so on. And then, hey presto! the uncaused cause is this very specific Christian god.

[Zebulon]

So you're asking how they bridge the gap between the god of the philosophers and the triune god of Christianity?

The classical definition of theology is "faith seeking understanding". Which implies that they already know where they want to end up, and they're going to rationalize how they get there. You can't get from Aristotle's unmoved mover to the trinity without a "hey presto!" moment.

[DMB]

So you're asking how they bridge the gap between the god of the philosophers and the triune god of Christianity?

The classical definition of theology is "faith seeking understanding". Which implies that they already know where they want to end up, and they're going to rationalize how they get there. You can't get from Aristotle's unmoved mover to the trinity without a "hey presto!" moment.

You may be right. Have you come aross any of their arguments?

[Zebulon]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1

Article 1. Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?

I answer that, It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (12, 4, 12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (Question 12, Article 12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways.

Firstly, as regards the dignity of faith itself, which consists in its being concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason; wherefore the Apostle says that "faith is of things that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1), and the same Apostle says also, "We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden" (1 Corinthians 2:6-7).

Secondly, as regards the utility of drawing others to the faith. For when anyone in the endeavor to prove the faith brings forward reasons which are not cogent, he falls under the ridicule of the unbelievers: since they suppose that we stand upon such reasons, and that we believe on such grounds.

Therefore, we must not attempt to prove what is of faith, except by authority alone, to those who receive the authority; while as regards others it suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not impossible. Hence it is said by Dionysius (Div. Nom. ii): "Whoever wholly resists the word, is far off from our philosophy; whereas if he regards the truth of the word"--i.e. "the sacred word, we too follow this rule."

There's the "hey, presto!" moment, at least from Aquinas's perspective: fallacious appeal to authority.

[DMB]

That's really good, Zebulon!

Of course, a lot of modern Christians trot out Aquinas and others. Has anyone come across anything new in the arguments?

[Valheru]

WHat about that Jesus schpiel from Riligulous that god is like the three phases of water - ice, liquid and vapour?

[Alex]

According to the Catholic Catechism, we cannot fully understand how three Divine Persons are one and the same God because this is a mystery. Since it's impenetrable to the power of reasoned investigation, it's a mystery that's not meant to be solved. So it's not surprising that Aquinas falls back on the appeal to authority in order to compel belief.

[DMB]

WHat about that Jesus schpiel from Riligulous that god is like the three phases of water - ice, liquid and vapour?

I like that one. But it doesn't go very far when you examine it.

[lpetrich]

That's the modal argument for the Trinity, that God has a three-way split personality.

Over at FRDB, formerly IIDB, a certain Ed has a VERY strange argument. He believes in laws of logic, like a "Law of Sufficient Cause", which nobody else seems to have heard of, and he seems to believe in a fallacious Law of Resemblance, in which an effect must resemble its cause.

He puts his Law of Resemblance in a very strange way. He argues that since our Universe is a diversity within a unity, then its creator must also be a diversity within a unity, and that the Xian God is the only possible god that has that nice property.

[DMB]

That's the modal argument for the Trinity, that God has a three-way split personality.

Over at FRDB, formerly IIDB, a certain Ed has a VERY strange argument. He believes in laws of logic, like a "Law of Sufficient Cause", which nobody else seems to have heard of, and he seems to believe in a fallacious Law of Resemblance, in which an effect must resemble its cause.

He puts his Law of Resemblance in a very strange way. He argues that since our Universe is a diversity within a unity, then its creator must also be a diversity within a unity, and that the Xian God is the only possible god that has that nice property.

But then, why stop at three? and why not some feminine persons? We could then have God the Father, God the Son, God the Grandmother, God the Mother, God the Daughter, God the Uncle, and so on.

[lpetrich]

So if anyone starts talking about the Father and the Son, you can ask them about the Mother and the Daughter. I've done that myself a few times.

On this Law of Resemblance, Ed has even claimed that various other religions' gods cannot have created our Universe because they are completely unified and not composed of subgods in the fashion of the Xian Trinity.

I'm reminded of Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism, p. 20. After claiming that an effect can never be superior to his cause, he concludes that
The First Cause of limitless Space must be infinite.
The First Cause of endless Time must be eternal.
The First Cause of boundless Energy must be omnipotent.
The First Cause of universal Interrelationships must be omnipresent.
The First Cause of infinite Complexity must be omniscient.
The First Cause of Moral Values must be moral.
The First Cause of Spiritual Values must be spiritual.
The First Cause of Human Responsibility must be volitional.
The First Cause of Human Integrity must be truthful.
The First Cause of Human Love must be being.
The First Cause of Life must be living.

We conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, moral, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!
Seems like Henry Morris was using Ed's Law of Resemblance, though he might claim that it follows from his law of cause-and-effect.

In any case, that argument is almost too easy to satirize.

[hecaterin]

As to mathematics, what is the math behind the Trinity?

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

?

That only works if 1 + 1 = 0 ;)Perfect mod 2 arithmetic. :)