Law Of Identity:
In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”.
Trinity:
Father, Son, Holy Ghost
But can the Christian simply say it is one “power” with three parts???
In classical theism, God is simple and has no parts (or, all of God’s parts are identical with all of his other parts). This means that the doctrine of the Trinity can’t (on classical theism) be a doctrine that God has three distinct parts.
All of God’s properties are also supposed to be identical to all of God’s other properties, so on classical theism the doctrine of the Trinity also can’t be a doctrine that God has three distinct properties.
But they (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) are definitely three different things. Just not different parts or properties of God. Three different persons, though, for sure.
It’s just that all three of these people have the same substance.
There’s no contradiction here, but it’s also never been clear how to model what’s going on. It’s its own thing, not like anything else. Which dovetails nicely with classical theism’s doctrine of analogy, which states that whatever properties God has are not strictly shared with anything else in the universe.
I cant think of a more clear cut contradiction
I’m pretty sure the Law of Identity is also violated by quantum physics.
ummm… what?
What’s the contradiction you’re seeing? What’s the sentence ‘A’ such that, according to the doctrine, both A and not-A are true?
Is there a particular contradiction you have in mind, i.e. a statement of the form “A and not-A”?
the contradiction is when they say they are monotheists, when they define god as a single entity
Sure the Doctrine of the Trinity violates the Law of Identity. But so what? If a transcendent creator exists, it would not be subject to what we perceive as the laws of physics and logic any more than a three-dimensional entity is constrained by 2D geometry.
so, in your estimation, god could be both dead and alive at the same time (to pick just one example)
A monotheist is someone who believes there is only one being who is God. Since on classical theism the three persons all share one being, the doctrine still counts as monotheistic.
Someone could insist that monotheism is the doctrine that only one person is God, but this would seem to be mere semantic dispute.
I’m an atheist. My point is that you’ll never resolve a theological dispute with logic (no matter what the Jesuits say) because theists have a get out of jail free card.
ok, but not my point
I dont think a “word puzzle” like can god make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it, i dont think that is enough to disprove god, but, i don’t think god can actually contradict himself… like he can’t say i want justice, but, i will forgive your sins if you believe in jesus. the issue is not about what god is allowed to do, it is he can’t call it jsutice if you don’t serve your own punsihment.
Can light be both a particle and a wave? Can an electron’s location be determined - is it ever, in fact, the same with itself? Actually, can subatomic particles truly be said to have distinct identities? I’m no physicist, and I certainly don’t believe in any Trinity, but it seems to me that concepts of identity are a bit more… fluid today then they were 2,500 years ago.
My point is that we shouldn’t be asking whether the Trinity violates the Law of Identity; we should be asking whether the Law of Identity is even valid any more. That seems like a much more interesting discussion than yet another futile attempt to prove or disprove God.
Got 4 years to spend at the graduate seminary, OP? The argument and debate on the nature or even existence of the Trinity has been ongoing just about as long as there have been Christian theologians.
OTOH…
… but now you’re posing what *you *believe is a sine qua non requirement that “you serve your own punishment” or else there’s no justice. That overlooks one of the most basic parts of (mainstream, classic) Christian doctrine, which is that Justice has been served by Jesus’ sacrifice on behalf of the truly repentant believer.
no, i’m referring to the definition of Justice, like, the actual definition of the word.
i thought it was in bad form here to hijack threads?.. i really don’t care to get into a discussion of quantum mechanics vs traditional philosphy
But since your argument is based on traditional philosophy, shouldn’t traditional philosophy be held up to criticism? If you claim that “A is wrong because B is right”, wouldn’t saying “B is wrong” disprove your argument?
look, i really don’t care that much, i don’t, i wanted to see if anyone (on this board) could defend the proposition. thus far, no one has.
Something can have both wavelike properties and particle-like properties, yes. What’s the contradiction (A & not-A) you think you see here?
It definitely is.