Help a Trinitarian Reach Congitive Dissonance!

[Jacob Pressures]

There are many ways to help Trinitarians to reach cognitive dissonance. They reach it quite often. Don't think this is the only way. (You can search my posts to find SCRIPTURAL WAYS to cause them cognitive dissonance as well.) They try to avoid this by equivocating or switching illustrations in the middle of a conversation.  (Now watch how they will NOT follow this exercise as prescribed).

LEts try this more slowly. Tell me when I error

The Trinity is 3 persons in ONE God.

Jesus is God.
Jesus is divine.
Jesus is a divine person.
Jesus is one of the persons in the Godhood (I mean Godhead)

Substitute Father and Holy Ghost for the above.

Any problems so far?

God is made up of 3 divine persons (autonomous entities).
God is made up of 3 gods.

Why does this NOT logically follow?

Now Nature does prevent the obvious problem of 1 god = 3 gods but in my opinion it is worse.

Lets start over.

Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost share the exact same nature.
Jesus is divine (in nature).
Jesus is a divine person.
Jesus is one of 3 persons who is divine in nature. (no problem right?)

James, Peter, and Sam share the exact same nature.
James is human (in nature).
James is a human person.
James is one of many persons who is human.

James Peter and Sam are 3 person who are human.
James Peter and Sam are 3 humans.  (no problem right?)

Any problem so far with either of these new arguments? Please point it out.

Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are 3 divine persons.
Jesus, the Father, and the holy Ghost are 3 gods.

The problem in each case is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE on the part of the Trinitarian.

The problem with a Trinitarian not believing in 3 gods is simply cognitive dissonance. They simply won't allow themselves to reach the logical conclusion SO THEY IGNORE IT, change subjects or use a different illustration.

also they like to say that there is no APPARENT contradiction in the Trinity definition. but that depends on God being a NATURE or not however. IT does depend on the illustration. BUT the key word is APPARENT!  The Trinitarian IS NOT WILLING to allow the analogy that IS TRULY non-contradictory, GO TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION!

[veka]

What do you mean by nature?

[Jacob Pressures]

What do Trinitarians believe by nature.

[veka]

So what is it?

[Jacob Pressures]

To me it is just an assertion like all their proofs. Its not based on Scripture.

[veka]

Okay. As I see it, there is only one entity that exemplifies the property of being God and this entity is three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don't have any cognitive dissonance when asserting this.

[Jacob Pressures]

I have a logical structure you completely ignore. Thanks you did just as i said you would.

[Stephen]

It seems to me that the Godhead has somewhat of a dual nature itself, not unlike man (whom is made in the image of God after all), that is, God has a divine nature and a personal nature, as man has somewhat the same- a personal nature (natural body), and a spiritual nature (spiritual body) (1 Corinthians 15:44).

We might call the divine nature “God,” whereas we might call the personal natures “Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”  All still make up the complete Godhead here, just as the personal and spiritual nature make up the complete man (Adam), whom is yet seen as one.  We might call this “consubstantial”- all are of one substance (“I and the Father are one”).

Now you claim these three persons are “autonomous,” and while perhaps intuitive, still seems a bit hasty.  After all, Jesus quite readily admits many times over that he does his Father’s will; it directs him.  At Jesus’ baptism however, we do see all three members present, simultaneously.  So I think we need to say the three personal natures are simply distinct.  Notice then this is not much unlike how a man’s spiritual nature is understood as distinct from his “natural” nature as it were, yet man is of one substance.

I think then if understood in this manner, such logical contradictions may melt away, opening up to freely, rationally accept the Trinity without dipping into cognitive dissonance.

[Jacob Pressures]

Thanks Stephen for providing your thoughts on this. There are a few problems here.

1) You don't address my arguments directly. (I want to stress this because I don't want a run away thread). I think i asked a legitimate question within its own right and the Trinity should be logical AT ITS BASIC LEVEL. But it appears that is not the case.

2) Autonomous - I think you fail to understand the Trinity. They must each be autonomous in their PERSONS in order for them to be co-equal.  What you are suggesting is subordination!  This is an eastern view of the Trinity and not a Western view although it is clearly taught in Scripture. It should be noted that subordinationism tends towards Arianism. Nevertheless, if they are not autonomous, you don't have a Trinity. If you think differently we can start a new thread and discuss this.

I added this link to address this issue: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/trinity/are-persons-triune-god-autonomous-6023311.0.html

I think then if understood in this manner, such logical contradictions may melt away, opening up to freely, rationally accept the Trinity without dipping into cognitive dissonance.

I don't see logically how this is true.  You've not engaged my argument. Its hard to see how a few changes makes any difference.  Perhaps if you engage my argument I will see your point more clearly.

Thanks!

[Biep]

The Trinity is 3 persons in ONE God.

All right, though one could quibble about the word "in".

Jesus is God.
Jesus is divine.
Jesus is a divine person.
Jesus is one of the persons in the Godhood (I mean Godhead)

Substitute Father and Holy Ghost for the above.

Any problems so far?

No, assuming the 'substitute' command means roughly 'and likewise the Father and the Holy Ghost', this seems to be a set of true statements.

God is made up of 3 divine persons (autonomous entities).
God is made up of 3 gods.

Why does this NOT logically follow?

For one thing, because there is no logical argument leading from the earlier statements to these statements (of which, by the way, one is true and one is false, given a very charitable interpretation of "made up of").
Just try to write out the supposed logic, and you'll see you can't.
(Hint: the conclusion of a logical argument cannot contain terms that are not in the premisses.)

Now Nature does prevent the obvious problem of 1 god = 3 gods but in my opinion it is worse.

I agree with the first half, and cannot make sense of the second half.  Why would nature preventing 1 god being 3 gods be bad, and what would be even worse than that?

(BTW, I took "nature" here in the completely different sense of "the way reality is".  If you meant the divine nature I think the first half is false, but that seems outside the scope of this discussion.)

Lets start over.

Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost share the exact same nature.
Jesus is divine (in nature).
Jesus is a divine person.
Jesus is one of 3 persons who is divine in nature. (no problem right?)

If there is an implied existential quantifier ("there is a nature x such that..") I see no problem here.  Of course Jesus has a human nature too, the way a person may have two passports.

James, Peter, and Sam share the exact same nature.
James is human (in nature).
James is a human person.
James is one of many persons who is human.

James Peter and Sam are 3 person who are human.
James Peter and Sam are 3 humans.  (no problem right?)

Any problem so far with either of these new arguments? Please point it out.

Sorry, which arguments?  I only see assertions so far, which may well be true for some James, Peter and Sam.

Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are 3 divine persons.
Jesus, the Father, and the holy Ghost are 3 gods.

And here are two more assertions, one true and one false.

The problem in each case is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE on the part of the Trinitarian.

At this point I had expected you to draw some conclusions from all the statements you made; instead it seems you expect the reader to set up a reasoning and come to some unknown problematic conclusion.  There is indeed a problem, and it is that I don't know what conclusion you want me to draw and what the problem with that conclusion would be.  Could you write out the argument, please, instead of merely stating the premisses?

The problem with a Trinitarian not believing in 3 gods is simply cognitive dissonance.  They simply won't allow themselves to reach the logical conclusion SO THEY IGNORE IT, change subjects or use a different illustration.

That may be true, as I for one can't seem to reach any troubing logical conclusion from the premisses you gave - even if I were to grant the false ones.  Please show the reasoning and the conclusion.

also they like to say that there is no APPARENT contradiction in the Trinity definition. but that depends on God being a NATURE or not however.  IT does depend on the illustration.  BUT the key word is APPARENT!  The Trinitarian IS NOT WILLING to allow the analogy that IS TRULY non-contradictory, GO TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION!

God is not a nature.  He, like any entity, has natures, most strikingly the divine one.

[Stephen]

1) Ok, then let’s apply what I wrote to your logic.

Jesus is God.
Jesus is divine.
Jesus is a divine person.
Jesus is one of the persons in the Godhood (I mean Godhead)

Substitute Father and Holy Ghost for the above.

I don’t see a warranted leap from Jesus being “divine,” to Jesus being a "divine person" here; I don’t think it necessarily follows.  Instead, it probably should read:
Jesus is divine.
Jesus is a person/is personal.
Jesus is one of the persons of the Godhead.
The Godhead is divine.

If we’re allowing the sort of dualism I purported previously, these then do not seem to be in any sort of contradiction, given consubstantialism- Jesus has a dualistic nature, as well the Godhead itself has a dualistic nature- divine and personal.  This seems quite consistent with everything we know, scripturally.
If Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit then are not “divine persons,” as I’ve attempted to demonstrate, given the rest of your argument depends upon this assumption to make its conclusion, therefore renders it invalid.

2) View of how the trinity is understood, as relating to Eastern vs. Western, doesn’t seem relevant here.  It was apparent to me that the concern of the OP was the internal coherence of the trinity in general, as it did not specify any specific view beyond that needing reconciliation.  As such, I’ve attempted to demonstrate with scriptural support, mind you, that we need not understand each member as properly “autonomous,” since Jesus himself did not appear to understand himself to be at any rate.

[Curt J. O'Brian]

Here's a response I gave in a thread recently to a person trying to understand the Trinity. I think it should help clear up any contradiction you perceive:

The Trinity is like this. A = father, B = son, C = Holy Spirit, D = God.

A is D
B is D
C is D

Okay, so we've established that all of these are D. It does not follow that therefore C is A, or A is B, and so on. For example:

John is human
Dave is human
Bob is human

Therefore:

Bob is Dave?
John is Bob?
Dave is John?

No, that simply does not follow.

To provide an accurate illustration of the analogy, think of your hand. You have 5 discreet digits on your hand. They're all very much a part of the hand, and they are all hand digits (as opposed to toe digits, or something like that). They're distinct from one another, in that your index finger is not the same as your ring finger and so on. But, they're not separate. They're very much connected and part of the greater whole, the hand. Think of the hand as God and the persons as fingers. The persons are a part of God, very much part of the same being, yet distinct in that they're not the same as each other.

Do note, the view I'm espousing is called Social Trinitarian Monotheism. It's held to by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, and I believe Alvin Plantinga (not certain). That does not mean every Trinitarian agrees with it, it's just my view.

I know it's odd since this isn't really tailored to reply directly to your post, but I think it adequately covers your post.

[Maxximiliann]

Here's a response I gave in a thread recently to a person trying to understand the Trinity. I think it should help clear up any contradiction you perceive:

The Trinity is like this. A = father, B = son, C = Holy Spirit, D = God.

A is D
B is D
C is D

Okay, so we've established that all of these are D. It does not follow that therefore C is A, or A is B, and so on. For example:

John is human
Dave is human
Bob is human

Therefore:

Bob is Dave?
John is Bob?
Dave is John?

No, that simply does not follow.

To provide an accurate illustration of the analogy, think of your hand. You have 5 discreet digits on your hand. They're all very much a part of the hand, and they are all hand digits (as opposed to toe digits, or something like that). They're distinct from one another, in that your index finger is not the same as your ring finger and so on. But, they're not separate. They're very much connected and part of the greater whole, the hand. Think of the hand as God and the persons as fingers. The persons are a part of God, very much part of the same being, yet distinct in that they're not the same as each other.

Do note, the view I'm espousing is called Social Trinitarian Monotheism. It's held to by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, and I believe Alvin Plantinga (not certain). That does not mean every Trinitarian agrees with it, it's just my view.

I know it's odd since this isn't really tailored to reply directly to your post, but I think it adequately covers your post.

In your analogy, any distinct finger is not your hand but, rather, 1/6th of your hand.

In other words, you're arguing Jesus is 1/3rd God.

[Curt J. O'Brian]

Here's a response I gave in a thread recently to a person trying to understand the Trinity. I think it should help clear up any contradiction you perceive:

The Trinity is like this. A = father, B = son, C = Holy Spirit, D = God.

A is D
B is D
C is D

Okay, so we've established that all of these are D. It does not follow that therefore C is A, or A is B, and so on. For example:

John is human
Dave is human
Bob is human

Therefore:

Bob is Dave?
John is Bob?
Dave is John?

No, that simply does not follow.

To provide an accurate illustration of the analogy, think of your hand. You have 5 discreet digits on your hand. They're all very much a part of the hand, and they are all hand digits (as opposed to toe digits, or something like that). They're distinct from one another, in that your index finger is not the same as your ring finger and so on. But, they're not separate. They're very much connected and part of the greater whole, the hand. Think of the hand as God and the persons as fingers. The persons are a part of God, very much part of the same being, yet distinct in that they're not the same as each other.

Do note, the view I'm espousing is called Social Trinitarian Monotheism. It's held to by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, and I believe Alvin Plantinga (not certain). That does not mean every Trinitarian agrees with it, it's just my view.

I know it's odd since this isn't really tailored to reply directly to your post, but I think it adequately covers your post.

In your analogy, any distinct finger is not your hand but, rather, 1/6th of your hand.

In other words, you're arguing Jesus is 1/3rd God.

Okay. He's still a God person, in the same way you finger is a hand digit (not a toe digit). Fine by me.

[Maxximiliann]

Here's a response I gave in a thread recently to a person trying to understand the Trinity. I think it should help clear up any contradiction you perceive:

The Trinity is like this. A = father, B = son, C = Holy Spirit, D = God.

A is D
B is D
C is D

Okay, so we've established that all of these are D. It does not follow that therefore C is A, or A is B, and so on. For example:

John is human
Dave is human
Bob is human

Therefore:

Bob is Dave?
John is Bob?
Dave is John?

No, that simply does not follow.

To provide an accurate illustration of the analogy, think of your hand. You have 5 discreet digits on your hand. They're all very much a part of the hand, and they are all hand digits (as opposed to toe digits, or something like that). They're distinct from one another, in that your index finger is not the same as your ring finger and so on. But, they're not separate. They're very much connected and part of the greater whole, the hand. Think of the hand as God and the persons as fingers. The persons are a part of God, very much part of the same being, yet distinct in that they're not the same as each other.

Do note, the view I'm espousing is called Social Trinitarian Monotheism. It's held to by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, and I believe Alvin Plantinga (not certain). That does not mean every Trinitarian agrees with it, it's just my view.

I know it's odd since this isn't really tailored to reply directly to your post, but I think it adequately covers your post.

In your analogy, any distinct finger is not your hand but, rather, 1/6th of your hand.

In other words, you're arguing Jesus is 1/3rd God.

Okay. He's still a God person, in the same way you finger is a hand digit (not a toe digit). Fine by me.

So, per your views, Christ is not God but 1/3 God, correct?