God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it. — Gregory

Yes. Unfortunately, you can't expect atheists and anti-Christians to understand that. Yet they are allowed to dominate the debate and even encouraged for some strange reason.

Here's evidence against the trinity: it encourages the sort of irrationality found in posts such as this...

God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it. Once that is understood (as far as is possible) you can get to the Incarnation and see how a human nature can be subsumed up into the divine nature and live a consciousness that is and is not the same consciousness as the divine nature. It's in different respects. There is three Gods and one God but not in the same respect. The divine nature is one but the relations of consciousness utilizing the same intellect and will in God to love each other is how Christians understand the Trinity. You can say there are three Gods although this is not perfectly accurate, just as you can say there are three persons in one nature although this is not accurate because there is one intellect and will used by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even the will and reason of God is one and not distinct from his justice love, mercy, ect. These are high level ideas and should not be dismissed by forum posters who haven't considered them seriously enough — Gregory

Ye. I am Catholic in a way, culturally at least. I don't like when Christians try to prove their beliefs but if they aren't doing that then I'm one of them in a sense although they probably regard me as more a Buddhist or something.

You follow the grand Christian tradition of equating critique with persecutions. — Banno

Not really. I just don't think statements like "Jesus would have been appalled" are logical arguments in a debate when there is no evidence to back it up.

Yet they are allowed to dominate the debate — Apollodorus

We dominate?

Every second thread is interrupted by you and your friends, but we dominate?

The Christians are a blight on the forum, yes, because they only have one topic; but more, because they do not accept rational discussion.

It's a malignancy.

Have you read Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity or read Scotian counters to some of his finer points? No. So your claim is like an algebra student critiquing a paper on calculus. Formulations on the Trinity are as intricate, deep, and difficult as high level mathematics

Have you read Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity or read Scotian counters to some of his finer points? — Gregory

Actually... yes. Bet that plays havoc with your faith in initiation rituals.

The Christians are a blight on the forum, yes, because they only have one topic; but more, because they do not accept rational discussion. — Banno

Fine. Then it would be more honest to ban Christians from the forum.

Plus, belief is belief. I don't see atheists subjecting their beliefs to "rational discussion" at all. On the contrary.

When it is pointed out to you that there is no way you can possibly know that, you become agitated and abusive. — Apollodorus

We already had this discussion. Did you forget because you did not like the answer or did you close your eyes and pretend it didn't happen?

You choose to ignore what we are told Jesus said in the Gospels and latch on to something in John that does not unambiguously say what you want it to.

Then it would be more honest to ban Christians from the forum. — Apollodorus

If It were mine to do, I would. I think I've made that clear over the years. I would ban any form of theology or apologetics. You would be free to post, but not to preach.

I don't see atheists subjecting their beliefs to "rational discussion" at all. — Apollodorus

What you don't see is no more than an odd piece of autobiography on your part. It is Christians who demand that every discussion be framed in terms of God. Atheists can talk about other things - and do.

But, demonstrably, there are atheists here, presenting arguments, in direct contradiction of your assertion.

This very post is an example.

What conclusion should we reach, if not that you are wilfully dishonest?

Actually... yes. Bet that plays havoc with your faith in initiation rituals. — Banno

I don't know what you mean about rituals. I don't do rituals. But it's a surprise you've read Aquinas considering what you say on this thread and others. But kudos to you

Jesus said in the Gospels — Fooloso4

It's not crazy to believe God exists. Jesus might have been God, might have not existed, might have been evil, might have been a lesser god, or an infinity of other things. However: "Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility"- George Joyce

But, demonstrably, there are atheists here, presenting arguments, in direct contradiction of your assertion. — Banno

I don't think so. Statements like "Jesus would have been appalled" aren't arguments. just unfounded speculation IMO.

And are Muslims "a blight" as well, or just Christians?

You do rely on rituals. You recite stuff to yourself in the place of actually submitting it to rational critique. That's what you are doing here. The initiation is your assumption that those who have bothered to read Aquinas must agree with his arguments.

He's just not that good. Of some historical interest, but not philosophically important.

Christians discover ideas that can be thought of but which are above reason. Those doctrines are amazing and mind expanding. — Gregory

Nothing's above Reason. For either you think there is a reason to think something is above Reason - in which case you demonstrate only that you are confused - or you think there is no reason to think there is something above Reason, in which case you have no case by your own lights.

Anyway, you're clearly more interested in being dazzled than in gaining understanding - sounds like Buddhism might be more up your street, or anything taht goes by the name of 'eastern philosophy'.

I don't think so — Apollodorus

Yeah, we can see you don't think so. More autobiography. So what?

And yes, Muslims who come to the cite and do nothing but quote the Koran and drag god into unrelated threads would not be welcome. You attempt to shift topic is noted - more examples of your refusal to address the issue.

You attempt to shift topic is noted - more examples of your refusal to address the issue — Banno

I think it's the other way around. I was right on the topic which is the Trinity when the Foolo started to claim that Jesus told him that he doesn't believe in the Trinity.

I think it's the other way around. — Apollodorus

Dude, you tried to move form Christianity to Islam.

Here's my objection:

God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.

Hence a good rule of thumb is that philosophers should were possible avoid using god. And generally speaking this rule is followed; it is not common, for example, to explain the differences between machine poetry and human poetry by using god, or the deity as an excuse for racism; and doing so would almost certainly result in a ban for low post quality.

This is not to rule out the use of philosophical techniques to examine the notion of god. Reason, sense-perception, introspection, other philosophical techniques can be applied to examining the coherence and consistence of the notion of god. Here we can draw a line at the introduction of revelation. So for instance it would be inappropriate, in a discussion of the conflict between divine omnipotence and benevolence, to simply say that since the bible or the Pope or the Bhagavad Gita says god is such-and-such, it must be so.

More common and more aggravating are bad-faith members who enter into conversation on a topic with a pretence of seeking an open discussion, but who are actually quite certain of their opinion and unwilling to even countenance an open discussion. These folk will present an argument and then do whatever is needed to avoid critique. They will ignore replies, or repeat their argument without addressing the critique, or indulge in a range of fallacious ad hoc rhetoric, or just blatantly make stuff up; anything that avoids meeting the criticism head on. Devans99 was a blatant example; there are plenty of others. Many can be readily spotted by their heart-on-sleeve names.

In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:

claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.


These merit deletion or banning. — Banno

you tried to move form Christianity to Islam — Banno

Not at all. I only asked out of curiosity, to see if you hate other believers as well or just Christians.

My claim is that Christians have the right to interpret their own religion in whatever way they wish. — Apollodorus

But not in that case to call themselves Christians, unless "Christian" become a meaningless term.

What a Christian exactly is may not be a simple question, but certain writers across even centuries have been considered experts on the subject. And I am pretty sure that the meaning they have attached to the term "Christian" does not allow for whatever anyone chooses to suppose, whenever they choose to suppose it. Of course you can believe what you like, and on that basis call yourself a Christian, but you should not. For at least the simple reason that on that basis you are no Christian at all.

Not at all. I only asked out of curiosity, to see if you hate other believers as well or just Christians. — Apollodorus

Ah, persecution.

I don't hate Christians. I don't like bad philosophy.

But perhaps i should reconsider. You do provide a plethora of examples of poor reasoning. Without you, we would be reduced to a critique the quantum maniacs and MAGA.

So how can you discuss the Trinity on a thread about the Trinity without quoting Christian beliefs?

Plus, your own statement was this:

The trinity is inconsistent. — Banno

That doesn't sound like a logical argument to me at all.

how can you discuss the Trinity on a thread about the Trinity without quoting Christian beliefs? — Apollodorus

Here's the thing: There should be no thread on the Trinity in a philosophical forum.

using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno

That doesn't sound like a logical argument to me at all. — Apollodorus

Indeed, it isn't. It was a reply to the OP, in which those contradictions are set out.

Quoting out of context as a rhetorical device. Nice example. Thanks.

(This is me trying to be appreciative...)

For at least the simple reason that on that basis you are no Christian at all — tim wood

That's where you're totally wrong. I never said I was a Christian. I was only defending the Christians' right to interpret their own beliefs without being attacked by atheists who think Jesus has spoken to them.

That's where you're totally wrong. I never said I was a Christian. I was only defending the Christians' right to interpret their own beliefs without being attacked by atheists who think Jesus has spoken to them. — Apollodorus

Do you even know how to read?

Quoting out of context as a rhetorical device. Nice example. Thanks. — Banno

You only posted one or two statements on the Trinity. Do you expect me to make some up for you?

Do you even know how to read?

You only posted one or two statements on the Trinity. Do you expect me to make some up for for you? — Apollodorus

Indeed, I have noticed your tendency to make stuff up and attribute it to your interlocutors.

False attribution. Another nice example. Thank you.

Here's the thing: There should be no thread on the Trinity in a philosophical forum. — Banno

Well, there is a thread on the Trinity. Starting one and then attacking people for posting comments seems a bit irrational to me. But I could be wrong. Maybe that's how things are done on atheist forums.

But I didn't start it, and @Pinprick has only done the one post...

Confabulation? that's a psychological issue, not a logical one. Let's put this down as misattribution. Thanks.