A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[irichc]

We have three axioms:

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

3) Nothing is without an activity.

And I infer the following:

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

* * *

I.

"'The truth is the truth' is true" is a part of the set of truths, since it is true, but only in a tangencial way, as far as it doesn't need any other truth as a fundament and it exists necessarily.

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), innecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

II.

Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

Gnostics proposed a prolation or pronunciation of God to the material world. Before this prolation occurred, it would have been some unavoidable Silence and Abyss between the Creator and the creature.

Catholic ortodoxy opposes to this conception the coeternity of the Word, engendered from the same substance of God before any time was. The divine Verb is, previous to its incarnation, the invisible Image of the Creator, but it is also the invisible or rational image of every creature. It acts as a mediator between both realities.

Truth would be inactive and it could not create anything if it wasn't, at the same time, expansive. The self-sufficient truth, then, also implies the true. So, Trinity can be condensed in this sentence: "'The truth (Father) is the truth' (Son) is true (Holy Spirit)". It doesn't exist a simpler way to express the first true proposition, the unfounded fundament of everything.

If Islam denies that this proposition is true, then Islam is wrong and leads to falsity, which can't be attributed to God, but to the doctrines of men. If Islam thinks that there is a simpler procedure in order to express this first true proposition, may Islam show it as soon as possible.

III.

1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

2) However, the Father can't be fully identified with that coeternal ideas, since they presuppose a creative intention and a preceptive order. In the other hand, the will of Creation is an accidental one compared to the eternal, unengendered and self-subsistent potency of God.

Plus, God's providence depends on his will, while his will doesn't depend on providence.

Finally, ideas are naturally conceivable, but God is absolutely inconceivable.

3) Christ (the Son) is the sum of all the ideas that tend to Creation, and he is also its engendered fundament: the Good, the Truth, the Life.

God, nevertheless, is Christ's fundament.

4) God, an absolutely undetermined potency, engenders the Truth, an absolutely determined potency. At last, it engenders the Spirit, which is the infinite and absolutely determined act, as far as it is coherent with the Truth.

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Eddier1]

[quote]Originally posted by irichc
a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.
***************************************************

Causitry in all its scope is what you have presented in your argument. It is an argument based on the principle of identity which only applies to the framework of reference of formal logic, i.e., abstract thought by someone.

Usually in the history of thought, the foremost exponents of your type of argument were the Jesuits and thinkers in the Middle Ages. But the Jesuits made it their "thing" and, therefore, Jesuitical causitry become the most famous example of using formal logic to prove the existence of "God" and the "creation" of the Universe out of nothingness, viz., 'creatio ex nihilo'. But their proof failed; in short, they did not prove the existence of "God" nor the creation of the universe. There is no reason that can disprove that the basic elements, or building blocks of the world did not exist always, and that some random fluctuation of those elements triggered the cosmic phenomenon known as the Universe.

I recommend that you read the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and what he means by objects which are not of possible experience. And why formal logic does not cut the mustard when it comes to explaining the empirical and/or material world.

Not to put your ingenious argument down, but after studying and understanding Kant, you will comprehend why there is more truth in counting your fingers than there is in the entire spectrum of Jesuitical causitry. BTW, it also would help you if you tried to understand what the medieval thinker William of Occam meant when he stated that "entities ought not be multiplied unnecessarily". He in effect refuted forever the speculations of the medieval logicians and metaphysicians, and the Jesuits who followed those medieval thinkers.

[irichc]

1) Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

2) You can ask yourselves the following questions: Why should cease existing that which has started to exist? And why should never start to exist that which exists contingently? There are no reasons at all.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

3) Does an eternal Universe explain something? No. Then, does the hypothesis of God enrich our knowledge? Yes, by stating that nothing is without a reason or, in other words, that everything which exists can be known.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Eddier1]

[quote]Originally posted by irichc
[b]1) Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time.
*******************************************************

You are not correctly using Occam's razor. You are instead begging the question by introducing the adjective 'eternal' to modify the Universe. Here you have violated Occam's razor by multipling the concept of Universe with an adjective which is not necessary. And you would have to prove the existence of God existing before there was time and space and/or space-time. That you haven't no more than the Jesuits or the medieval thinkers who came before them. If they had proved it, then there would be no need for faith, all would know and understand instead of believe.

No one can prove that the Universe is either eternal nor even infinite. The symbol of the infinite used in mathematics is merely a hueristic device that is necessary to make calculations within the frame of reference of mathematics. It has not been proved the Universe is either eternal nor that it is infinite.