Ok, God has three persons

But how isn't that Partialism? If the persons make God, then they are parts of God. Otherwise the math wouldn't add up.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If the persons make God, then they are parts of God
    No you can't divide the trinity

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Non sequitur

      What does "make something" mean other than "to be a part of something"? I don't get it.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where does "make something " come up in regards to the trinity?

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          In the other thread a guy said that the persons make the being of God, I don't know if it's accurate.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Make up" as in they are 3 parts of God is not correct terminology.
            They are 3 separate persons, 1 will, each fully God

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >each fully God
            So if each of them are fully God, how aren't there three Gods? That's what I asked in that other thread I quoted.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because they aren't separated in Godhood, all having the same will

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            But if each of them are God and have the same will, how wouldn't they be three Gods with the same will?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            In polytheism "gods" have separate wills

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it would still be Polytheism if the three Gods had the same will, because they would be multiple Gods.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            So again that isn't how polytheism has ever worked and that isn't anywhere in Christian theology.
            3 Gods having 1 will is something you made up ad hoc

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that isn't anywhere in Christian theology.
            >3 Gods having 1 will is something you made up ad hoc
            Then how three persons being God are not three Gods? If each of them are God.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You already asked that to which i responded here

            But if each of them are God and have the same will, how wouldn't they be three Gods with the same will?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You just said that, for it to be Polytheism, they would have to have different wills. But how can not exist a Polytheism in which three Gods have the same will?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Here:

        [...]

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Meant for

          Where does "make something " come up in regards to the trinity?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't get it
        Exactly.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can you explain to me?

          Trinitiarianism is literally incoherent

          a = b
          b = c
          a =/= c

          I just disproved all Trinitarian Christianity in one shitpost.

          No, it's like

          You are human
          I am human
          He is human

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are human
            >I am human
            >He is human
            That ends up being 3 Gods

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's my doubt

            No, look at the chart. It literally says these three persons "is" (=) God, but use "is not" (=/=) for each other. It's literally a=b, b=c, a=/=c.

            It doesn't use "="

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Is" not always means "equals". See [...].

            Mathematically, "is" and "=" are the same thing. It's a word used to make a statement about identity. So, no, it does amount to the same thing. Your theology is simply incoherent, period.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a grammatical predicate, not a mathematical equality

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Two things can't be a third thing without also being each other. It's literally a violation of the law of identity. Your theology is incoherent, just move on.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you explain to me?
            [...]
            No, it's like

            You are human
            I am human
            He is human

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Trinitiarianism is literally incoherent

            a = b
            b = c
            a =/= c

            I just disproved all Trinitarian Christianity in one shitpost.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's my doubt
            [...]
            It doesn't use "="

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            In other words, you are thinking mathematically, not grammatically

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm thinking logically

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The doctrine doesn't use the equal sign. You have to read it like

            Can you explain to me?
            [...]
            No, it's like

            You are human
            I am human
            He is human

            .

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The doctrine uses "is," which means "=". See

            Trinitiarianism is literally incoherent

            a = b
            b = c
            a =/= c

            I just disproved all Trinitarian Christianity in one shitpost.

            When you use "is" you are saying they are _the same thing_. You aren't saying they are part of something. You wouldn't say "my arm IS me" for example.

            This is a reading comprehension issue on your part and I'm sorry that you are failing it, but you are.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The doctrine uses "is," which means "="
            It doesn't necessarily mean "="

            "You are human" is not necessarily "You=human"

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol, "is" and "are" aren't the same word. Nice try at deflection, but no. "The Father is God" means the Father and God are the same thing. So The Father = God. See

            Trinitiarianism is literally incoherent

            a = b
            b = c
            a =/= c

            I just disproved all Trinitarian Christianity in one shitpost.

            This isn't a debate, you're just wrong.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's a predicate. For example, "He is a lawyer" is not the same as "He=lawyer". Google predicate nominative. Predicate nominatives are nouns.

            In the sentence "you are human" the word "human" is being used as a trait of "you," an adjective. It's not a statement that you are the class of things "human." "God" isn't an adjective. It's not a class of things. God is a particular thing. So [...] is correct. "The Father is God" is a statement of equivalence, not a statement of membership or anything else.

            >In the sentence "you are human" the word "human" is being used as a trait of "you," an adjective.
            Wrong, it's a predicate nominative, a noun.

            In the sentence "you are human" the word "human" is being used as a trait of "you," an adjective. It's not a statement that you are the class of things "human." "God" isn't an adjective. It's not a class of things. God is a particular thing. So [...] is correct. "The Father is God" is a statement of equivalence, not a statement of membership or anything else.

            >God" isn't an adjective. It's not a class of things.
            God can be a class of things. St. Gregory of Nyssa defined God as "beholder". But you can use "creator", for example, as well.
            >"The Father is God" is a statement of equivalence, not a statement of membership or anything else.
            It's a statemente of membership in the class God.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it's a predicate. For example, "He is a lawyer" is not the same as "He=lawyer".

            "He is a lawyer" =/= "He is lawyer." You keep doing these transformations against the sentence to evade the fact that "The Father is God" means the Father is the same thing as God and isn't a member of some category. I know you want it to mean something other than what it does, but it's tough nuggets man.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The father is a god, the son is a god, the holy spirit is a god. Problem solved.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The father is a god, the son is a god, the holy spirit is a god. Problem solved.

            Not if Trinitarianism is monotheistic it's not. So, are you forsaking Trinitarian Christianity as monotheism or are you... acknowledging his point?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nonetheless of the "a", they are predicate nominatives.

            In "[Anything] is _______" (noun), the "_____" (noun) is a predicate nominative.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, God isn't a class of beings in monotheism, it's a single being. So saying "The Father is God" you are saying that these are the same thing. So much for these copes.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a being and a class of things.
            >No, God isn't a class of beings in monotheism, it's a single being
            Source?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Monotheist religions believe in one God, not three. So whatever interpretation of the Trinitarian dogma (see OP image

            https://i.imgur.com/AoKGeOA.png

            But how isn't that Partialism? If the persons make God, then they are parts of God. Otherwise the math wouldn't add up.

            ), it must be that there's only one God. This means your attempt to characterize it as a "predicate" or as three separate Gods is invalid.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a statemente of membership in the class God.

            So The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not one thing, but three things. Three separate Gods. Three Gods. Monotheism has one God.

            Trinitarianism is polytheism.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The father is a god, the son is a god, the holy spirit is a god. Problem solved.

            That is my doubt, yes

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, he can't forsake Trinitarianism as monotheism since that's another one of the premises of it. If his interpretation of Trinitarianism amounts to polytheism, it's still incoherent, albeit for a different reason.

            So it's either incoherent by claiming that a=b, b=c, a=/=c, or it's incoherent by claiming that 3=1. It's lose-lose.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, it's a predicate. Don't read as "equals". When you say "The sky is blue", you aren't saying "The sky equals blue". Same for "is God". And it works with nouns also, I just used an adjective so that it's easier for you to see.

            "The man is rhetorician".

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            This predicate cope has already been addressed. Your attempt to make "The Father," "The Son," and "The Holy Ghost" separate Gods renders Trinitarianism polytheistic, but one of the premises of it is that it's monotheistic. 3=1.

            Do you understand? It's important that you understand.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This predicate cope has already been addressed
            And what was the conclusion for you?
            >Your attempt to make "The Father," "The Son," and "The Holy Ghost" separate Gods renders Trinitarianism polytheistic, but one of the premises of it is that it's monotheistic. 3=1.
            The Polytheism question is my doubt, yes

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And what was the conclusion for you?

            My conclusion is that whoever originally authored the Shield of Trinity couldn't into logic and Nicene Christianity has been dying on this stupid hill ever since.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anyway here's a dissertation on the logical problem of the trinity, if you are interested: philarchive.org/archive/BRATLP-3

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The doctrine of the Trinity is central to mainstream Christianity. But insofar
            as it posits “three persons” (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), who are “one God,”
            it appears as inconsistent as the claim that 1+1+1=1.

            So, what I said before lol:
            >So it's either incoherent by claiming that a=b, b=c, a=/=c, or it's incoherent by claiming that 3=1. It's lose-lose.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Remember the dissertation claims to solve the problem

            >the jesus is a god

            Yes, that is my doubt also. It would be three Gods.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Remember the dissertation claims to solve the problem

            That it's >300pgs is a good indication that it's basically just cope.pdf.

            What's the gist of the argument?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I haven't finished reading the parts I need to understand the full and final argument. And I don't know if it will convince me. Basically it's explaining how St Gregory Of Nyssa's account of the Trinity supposedly solves the problem with the "UAA (Unity of Action Argument), and then he formalizes it in formal logical terms.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It looks like a bunch of obscurantist bullshit, frankly.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, you gotta read more to at least understand his arguments

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I don't. If you can't make your argument succinctly it's almost definitely bullshit. If you're winning the argument and then someone comes with some tome it's probably just a distraction lol

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I haven't finished reading the parts I need to understand the full and final argument. And I don't know if it will convince me. Basically it's explaining how St Gregory Of Nyssa's account of the Trinity supposedly solves the problem with the "UAA (Unity of Action Argument), and then he formalizes it in formal logical terms.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Referencing another argument isn't making your argument succinctly.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            "UAA"*

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            So...
            The father is divine
            The son is divine
            The holy spirit is divine
            There are 3 divines

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, three Gods, specifically.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And it works with nouns also, I just used an adjective so that it's easier for you to see.
            >"The man is rhetorician".
            esl moment

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, "The man is a rhetorician".

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it works ok
            >ok it doesnt work

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nonetheless of the "a", they are predicate nominatives.

            In "[Anything] is _______" (noun), the "_____" (noun) is a predicate nominative.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the jesus is a god

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            3=1
            Multiply both sides by zero
            3*0=1*0
            therefore
            0=0

            It makes perfect sense if god is 0 and doesn't exist

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the sentence "you are human" the word "human" is being used as a trait of "you," an adjective. It's not a statement that you are the class of things "human." "God" isn't an adjective. It's not a class of things. God is a particular thing. So

            Lol, "is" and "are" aren't the same word. Nice try at deflection, but no. "The Father is God" means the Father and God are the same thing. So The Father = God. See [...]

            This isn't a debate, you're just wrong.

            is correct. "The Father is God" is a statement of equivalence, not a statement of membership or anything else.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, look at the chart. It literally says these three persons "is" (=) God, but use "is not" (=/=) for each other. It's literally a=b, b=c, a=/=c.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Is" not always means "equals". See

            Can you explain to me?
            [...]
            No, it's like

            You are human
            I am human
            He is human

            .

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are human
            >I am human
            >He is human
            Three humans, three gods

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Trinitiarianism is literally incoherent

      a = b
      b = c
      a =/= c

      I just disproved all Trinitarian Christianity in one shitpost.

  2. 9 months ago
    Sage Dirk

    Non sequitur

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >dirk made another trip just to sage
      Worker-tier

  3. 9 months ago
    Cult of Passion

    >three persons
    Knock it off with your heretical ignorance.

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'll post the link again so that more people can see it
    https://philarchive.org/archive/BRATLP-3

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *