Questions for Christians and other theists, part 8: the Trinity

One of the strangest doctrines in all of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine holds that there are three divine persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost — yet only one deity. Each of the three persons is fully God, and not just a part of God. A famous diagram known as the “Shield of the Trinity” compactly summarizes the idea:


The Trinity doesn’t make much sense, and many Christians recognize this. What most of us would call absurd they call a mystery, meaning something that is known to be true through revelation but cannot be demonstrated by mere human reason.

Some questions for the Christians out there:

1. Do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity?
2. Do you recognize the absurdity of it?
3. Do you deal with the absurdity by declaring it a “mystery”?

309 thoughts on “Questions for Christians and other theists, part 8: the Trinity

  1. CharlieM,

    The difference is in your equation the ‘1’ is a simple, separate, abstract unit, while the unity of the whole can be a complex entity. We as individuals are complex units.

    And despite our complexity, it is not difficult to count us. If you and I are alone in an elevator with J-Mac, it’s easy to see that there are three people in the elevator. 1+1+1=3. And that remains true even if we form some kind of complex entity like a committee or a manager and two employees. 1+1+1 is still 3.

    One person equals one nerve sense system plus one rhythmic system plus one metabolic limb system.

    Rhythmic system? Metabolic limb system? Sounds quite Steineroid.

    The three systems can be distinguished but they are meaningless in isolation from the whole.

    If they can be distinguished, they can be counted. (There are three of them.)

    In any case, it’s extremely important to Christians that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be recognized as distinct persons. They, too, can be counted — and the total is three.

  2. CharlieM: I thought you’d be all over that one. Two particles plus the activity that unites them, hey presto, a trinity =

    That’s a Duo plus quantum entanglement! 😉

  3. keiths: If you and I are alone in an elevator with J-Mac

    Hold on a moment!!!
    I have not agreed to any secret meetings, especially on the elevator, and during the times of hysteria, where in some parts of the world you can receive huge fine for not following the social distancing.. I don’t carry this kind of cash these days because nobody even wants to touch it…

    You wanna have a beer and talk Trinity, you come over to my house. I have a backyard big enough to obey all kinds of shitty laws…😂🤣

  4. keiths:

    CharlieM,

    The difference is in your equation the ‘1’ is a simple, separate, abstract unit, while the unity of the whole can be a complex entity. We as individuals are complex units.

    And despite our complexity, it is not difficult to count us. If you and I are alone in an elevator with J-Mac, it’s easy to see that there are three people in the elevator. 1+1+1=3. And that remains true even if we form some kind of complex entity like a committee or a manager and two employees. 1+1+1 is still 3.

    And what if the three beings are supposedly infinite?

  5. keiths:

    One person equals one nerve sense system plus one rhythmic system plus one metabolic limb system.

    Rhythmic system? Metabolic limb system? Sounds quite Steineroid.

    Correct.

    Nerve, sense system – upper – head – thinking – spiritual forces – peripheral, spherical skull.

    Rhythmic system – mid – torso – feeling – soul forces – central.

    Metabolic/limb system – lower – lower body and limbs – willing – physical forces – radial, long bones.

    As above, so below. A lower trinity. Three aspects of human physiology and how they relate to body, soul and spirit. And these systems can be broken down further in order to observe how the parts relate to the whole.

  6. keiths:

    The three systems can be distinguished but they are meaningless in isolation from the whole.

    If they can be distinguished, they can be counted. (There are three of them.)

    They can be distinguished but not physically separated.

    In any case, it’s extremely important to Christians that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be recognized as distinct persons. They, too, can be counted — and the total is three.

    And the three can be distinguished by their relationship to spirit, body, and soul.

  7. J-Mac:

    CharlieM: I thought you’d be all over that one. Two particles plus the activity that unites them, hey presto, a trinity 😉 = 😉

    That’s a Duo plus quantum entanglement! 😉

    2 + 1 = 3 🙂

  8. J-Mac:

    keiths: If you and I are alone in an elevator with J-Mac

    Hold on a moment!!!
    I have not agreed to any secret meetings, especially on the elevator, and during the times of hysteria, where in some parts of the world you can receive huge fine for not following the social distancing.. I don’t carry this kind of cash these days because nobody even wants to touch it…

    You wanna have a beer and talk Trinity, you come over to my house. I have a backyard big enough to obey all kinds of shitty laws…😂🤣

    That’s a pity. You two could have got entangled in the elevator while I took notes. On second thoughts, I get the feeling that it wouldn’t be a pretty sight. 😉

  9. keiths:

    If they can be distinguished, they can be counted. (There are three of them.)

    CharlieM:

    They can be distinguished but not physically separated.

    Physical separation is not needed in order to count them, just as it isn’t needed in order to count the vertices of a triangle.

  10. keiths:

    And despite our complexity, it is not difficult to count us. If you and I are alone in an elevator with J-Mac, it’s easy to see that there are three people in the elevator. 1 1 1=3. And that remains true even if we form some kind of complex entity like a committee or a manager and two employees. 1 1 1 is still 3.

    CharlieM:

    And what if the three beings are supposedly infinite?

    Then they are infinite, but there are still only three of them. Let s stand for the super-duperness of a being, with s being infinite for God. Take the limit of 1 1 1 as s approaches infinity. The answer you get is 3.

    Sorry, Charlie, but 1 1 1=3. That’s true in normal arithmetic, and it’s true when you bring transfinite numbers into your system.

    The magnitude of the super-duperness does not affect the number of beings. Those are separate variables.

  11. keiths:

    keiths: And despite our complexity, it is not difficult to count us. If you and I are alone in an elevator with J-Mac, it’s easy to see that there are three people in the elevator. 1 1 1=3. And that remains true even if we form some kind of complex entity like a committee or a manager and two employees. 1 1 1 is still 3.

    CharlieM: And what if the three beings are supposedly infinite?

    Then they are infinite, but there are still only three of them. Let s stand for the super-duperness of a being, with s being infinite for God. Take the limit of 1 1 1 as s approaches infinity. The answer you get is 3.

    Sorry, Charlie, but 1 1 1=3. That’s true in normal arithmetic, and it’s true when you bring transfinite numbers into your system.

    The magnitude of the super-duperness does not affect the number of beings. Those are separate variables.

    The orthodox view is not that there is a trinity of super-duper beings approaching the infinity of God. They are themselves infinite. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, ‘So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.’

    I can conceive of a trinity consisting of a creative source, the creation that it produces and the process whereby this creation is realised. But the Christian Trinity sits above this lower trinity which is a mere reflection.

  12. CharlieM:

    The orthodox view is not that there is a trinity of super-duper beings approaching the infinity of God. They are themselves infinite.

    Bingo. There are three of them, each infinite. 1+1+1 is still 3.

  13. keiths:

    CharlieM:

    The orthodox view is not that there is a trinity of super-duper beings approaching the infinity of God. They are themselves infinite.

    Bingo. There are three of them, each infinite. 1+1+1 is still 3.

    Yes but what is the relationship between the three?

    Imagine three spheres separated in space. Now imagine them expanding and contracting. As they contract their relative separation increases and as they expand they merge together. At infinite expansion the three spheres become one.

    Of course we seem to be chasing each other round a static sphere without any sign of it ending. But I am enjoying the exercise 🙂

    It’s just unfortunate that nobody who actually believes in the Athanasian Creed is participating to argue their side.

  14. CharlieM: It’s just unfortunate that nobody who actually believes in the Athanasian Creed is participating to argue their side.

    Religious arguments? It’s not what TSZ is known for. 🙂 I’m sort of reminded of odd comments at Uncommon Descent complaining that ID skeptics were not responding to their arguments. Of course, there was the additional problem that opponents are routinely disappeared there. BioLogos? Peaceful Science?

  15. Charlie,

    Imagine three spheres separated in space. Now imagine them expanding and contracting. As they contract their relative separation increases and as they expand they merge together. At infinite expansion the three spheres become one.

    If they become one then they no longer maintain their separate identities and a central tenet of Trinitarian doctrine is violated.

  16. And they aren’t expanding. They’re already infinite, and they never expanded, which means there is only one sphere, not three. It’s not a trinity.

  17. keiths:

    Charlie,

    Imagine three spheres separated in space. Now imagine them expanding and contracting. As they contract their relative separation increases and as they expand they merge together. At infinite expansion the three spheres become one.

    If they become one then they no longer maintain their separate identities and a central tenet of Trinitarian doctrine is violated.

    Here we have applied projective geometry to spheres in our imagination purely to arrive at concepts of infinity in relations unity and multiplicity. But geometric figures, either real or imagined, do not equate to conscious beings or entities. I was using this example as a simple analogy.

    Physicists have looked towards the smaller and smaller, by division and separation, in their search for what is assumed to be fundamental. This can be seen from the use of terms such as ‘fundamental particles’. And from here they try to derive unity. They never begin by assuming fundamental unity and then deriving separation.

    Thinking about the relationships between unity and multiplicity opens up all sorts of questions in our minds. At least I hope it does 🙂

  18. keiths:
    And they aren’t expanding.They’re already infinite, and they never expanded, which means there is only one sphere, not three.It’s not a trinity.

    That is the beauty of our minds. No physical sphere could expand or shrink to infinity, but by using our imagination we can arrive at these concepts. Our minds are not restricted to remain within the sphere of bones that contain our brains.

    And of course our minds can merge, but no amount of butting our heads together will get them to merge.

  19. Charlie,

    But geometric figures, either real or imagined, do not equate to conscious beings or entities. I was using this example as a simple analogy.

    I know. My point was that your analogy doesn’t work, for reasons already given.

  20. Charlie,

    Here we have applied projective geometry to spheres in our imagination purely to arrive at concepts of infinity in relations unity and multiplicity.

    It was Euclidean geometry, not projective, and we didn’t use it to arrive at “concepts of infinity”. We applied our preexisting concepts of infinity to the spheres.

  21. Charlie,

    That is the beauty of our minds. No physical sphere could expand or shrink to infinity, but by using our imagination we can arrive at these concepts. Our minds are not restricted to remain within the sphere of bones that contain our brains.

    You’re dodging my point, which was that your spheres don’t work as an analogy for the Trinity. 1 1 1 is still 3.

  22. keiths:

    Charlie,

    But geometric figures, either real or imagined, do not equate to conscious beings or entities. I was using this example as a simple analogy.

    I know. My point was that your analogy doesn’t work, for reasons already given.

    Fair enough. But do you agree that in the search for physical fundamentals, looking in the direction of the infinite plane should be given equal priority to looking towards the infinitly small point?

  23. keiths:

    Charlie,

    Here we have applied projective geometry to spheres in our imagination purely to arrive at concepts of infinity in relations unity and multiplicity.

    It was Euclidean geometry, not projective, and we didn’t use it to arrive at “concepts of infinity”. We applied our preexisting concepts of infinity to the spheres

    Euclidean geometry is a subset of projective geometry so you cannot say that this is not projective geometry. The fact that we are not taking static measurements but dynamically projecting the spheres implies that I am justified in calling it projective, but I don’t think these labels are worth spending much time arguing over.

    We were using nothing but our preexisting concepts in respect of everything in this mental exercise. We have the concepts, sphere, expansion, contraction, point, plane, surface, inner, outer among others. Although it is impossible to have an infinite physical sphere, we can physically represent a section of the surface of an infinite sphere. Any flat plate will provide this representation.

    I wasn’t trying to arrive at any novel concepts of infinity. I was trying to draw attention to the nature of infinity in relation to polarity, unity and multiplicity.

  24. Charlie,

    But do you agree that in the search for physical fundamentals, looking in the direction of the infinite plane should be given equal priority to looking towards the infinitly small point?

    This sounds like Steinerian gobbledygook.

    In the search for physical fundamentals, scientists should simply look for physical fundamentals. Infinite planes and infinitely small points have nothing to do with it.

    You have really damaged your thinking with all these years of Steiner.

  25. Charlie,

    The fact that we are not taking static measurements but dynamically projecting the spheres implies that I am justified in calling it projective, but I don’t think these labels are worth spending much time arguing over.

    We’ve already been over this. If you think that projective geometry is dynamic while Euclidean geometry is static, then you are deeply confused about both.

  26. keiths:

    Charlie,

    That is the beauty of our minds. No physical sphere could expand or shrink to infinity, but by using our imagination we can arrive at these concepts. Our minds are not restricted to remain within the sphere of bones that contain our brains.

    You’re dodging my point, which was that your spheres don’t work as an analogy for the Trinity. 1 1 1 is still 3.

    Your equation works fine for physical objects, especially solid objects. But the Trinity is supposedy outwith the restrictions of time and space.

  27. keiths:

    Charlie,

    But do you agree that in the search for physical fundamentals, looking in the direction of the infinite plane should be given equal priority to looking towards the infinitly small point?

    This sounds like Steinerian gobbledygook.

    In the search for physical fundamentals, scientists should simply look for physical fundamentals. Infinite planes and infinitely small points have nothing to do with it.

    You have really damaged your thinking with all these years of Steiner.

    What would you class as being physically fundamental?

  28. keiths:

    Charlie,

    The fact that we are not taking static measurements but dynamically projecting the spheres implies that I am justified in calling it projective, but I don’t think these labels are worth spending much time arguing over.

    We’ve already been over this. If you think that projective geometry is dynamic while Euclidean geometry is static, then you are deeply confused about both.

    Do you agree that Euclidean geometry is restricted application of projective geometry?

  29. keiths:

    We’ve already been over this. If you think that projective geometry is dynamic while Euclidean geometry is static, then you are deeply confused about both.

    CharlieM:

    Do you agree that Euclidean geometry is restricted application of projective geometry?

    Perhaps, which would give you even less of an excuse to assert that projective geometry is dynamic while Euclidean geometry is static.

  30. Charlie,

    What would you class as being physically fundamental?

    Energy is one candidate, but it’s not clear how we would know that we had “reached the bottom” — that is, identified the level that was truly fundamental.

  31. CharlieM,

    Your equation works fine for physical objects, especially solid objects. But the Trinity is supposedy outwith the restrictions of time and space.

    How do logic and math work in the domain where the Trinity exists?

  32. CharlieM: What would you class as being physically fundamental?

    One would need a working definition of what counts as “physically fundamental”.

    For what it’s worth, I like how Don Ross and James Ladyman define “physically fundamental” in Every Thing Must Go: a hypothesis belongs to fundamental physics if the hypothesis can be confirmed by measurements taken anywhere in the universe. So, biology does not belong to fundamental physics because biological hypotheses can be confirmed only at the space-time regions occupied by life.

    What I like about this definition is that it’s formal and operational: it leaves open the question as to which theories belong to fundamental physics, butt still specifies what we would need to in order to decide whether a theory belongs to fundamental physics or not.

    This definition also allows for multiple and even incompatible theories of fundamental physics (which is indeed the case in our current state of knowledge/ignorance).

  33. KN,

    This definition also allows for multiple and even incompatible theories of fundamental physics (which is indeed the case in our current state of knowledge/ignorance).

    Do they consider GR and QM to be theories of fundamental physics?

  34. keiths:
    KN,

    Do they consider GR and QM to be theories of fundamental physics?

    Yes, they do. They also discuss reasons for and against including thermodynamics as a theory of fundamental physics. To be honest I had trouble following that part of their analysis.

  35. KN,

    …a hypothesis belongs to fundamental physics if the hypothesis can be confirmed by measurements taken anywhere in the universe.

    So they are concerned here only with confirmation, not falsification? Otherwise it would seem that not even QM and GR would qualify as fundamental physics.

  36. keiths:
    KN,

    So they are concerned here only with confirmation, not falsification? Otherwise it would seem that not even QM and GR would qualify as fundamental physics.

    I don’t quite follow that line of reasoning.

    But to address your question (as I understand it) Ladyman and Ross don’t emphasize falsification. They would probably say that Karl Popper only emphasized falsification in order to avoid all the problems with induction. They don’t discuss induction and abduction in this book (to my recollection) but I don’t think they share Popper’s worries about whether induction is a rational procedure.

    However, for what it’s worth, they do have some nice insights into why Popper is the favorite philosopher of science amongst practicing scientists!

    In any event, I don’t mean to totally derail this thread — I only wanted to raise a point about how we might think about what makes “fundamental physics” really fundamental.

  37. keiths:

    keiths:

    We’ve already been over this. If you think that projective geometry is dynamic while Euclidean geometry is static, then you are deeply confused about both.

    CharlieM:

    Do you agree that Euclidean geometry is restricted application of projective geometry?

    Perhaps,

    This may help you to be more sure

    In 1859 Cayley outlined a notion of distance in projective geometry (a projective metric), and he was one of the first to realize that Euclidean geometry is a special case of projective geometry—an insight that reversed current thinking. Ten years later, Cayley’s projective metric provided a key for understanding the relationship between the various types of non-Euclidean geometries.

    So would you accept that projective geometry involves more dynamic thinking than Euclidean geometry?

    which would give you even less of an excuse to assert that projective geometry is dynamic while Euclidean geometry is static.

    I don’t say this as a criticism of Euclidean geometry. With his ‘Elements’ Euclid brought thinking down to earth. After all geometry is supposed to be about measuring the earth. It focused on earthly matters and not on the Gods that so often occupied ancient Greek thought.

    Ascending through the classical elements from earth to fire there is a progression from static stability to dynamic mobility. This is evident in the substances and the forces. Earthly gravity always pulls us in the same direction, it does not move, whereas the forces from the periphery are mobile. The effect of the heat of the sun (fire) moves across a pebble sitting on the earth while the direction of gravitational force on it is constant.

    We are now thoroughly acquainted with earthly matters and the arrival of projective geometry encourages us to turn our gaze back to the heavens, to the periphery. And in so doing we realise that the planar is just as fundamental as the point-wise. In our Cartesian coordinated world we have a trinity of point and plane with the straight line as intermediary. A point can be thought of as a single sphere infinitely reduced or it can be thought of a the intersection of an infinite number of planes. Likewise a plane can be though of as a sphere infinitely expanded or it can be thought of as an infinite number of points. And a straight line can also be thought of in this dual aspect.

    My memories of school geometry are all about measuring spacial dimensions such as lengths and angles. Projective geometry is more about transformations than measurement.

    In the evolution of consciousness, when we look at the development of painting over the ages we can see the beginning of the thinking that took account of perspective and thus allowed for projective geometry to make its appearance.

  38. keiths:

    Charlie,

    What would you class as being physically fundamental?

    Energy is one candidate, but it’s not clear how we would know that we had “reached the bottom” — that is, identified the level that was truly fundamental.

    ‘Reached the bottom’! I see what you did there. 😉

    It is interesting that you have chosen one of the classical elements as a candidate. Energy is the equivalent of ‘fire’. There is hope yet for you overcoming your physicalism 🙂

    Four physical fundamentals: Earth, Water, Air and Fire.

  39. keiths:

    CharlieM,

    Your equation works fine for physical objects, especially solid objects. But the Trinity is supposedy outwith the restrictions of time and space.

    How do logic and math work in the domain where the Trinity exists?

    The same I would presume. There are different laws that apply whether material is solid, liquid or gas, So how different then are the laws between spirit and matter. Spirit is unity, matter is multiplicity. Your equation applies to distinctly separate objects, but there is no such separation in the spiritual realm. Minds are not objects.

    Some paradoxical sayings ofHeraclitus are quite apt.

    Of this Word’s being forever do men prove to be uncomprehending, both before they hear and once they have heard it. For although all things happen according to this Word they are like the unexperienced experiencing words and deeds such as I explain when I distinguish each thing according to its nature and declare how it is. Other men are unaware of what they do when they are awake just as they are forgetful of what they do when they are asleep. (DK22B1)

    The road up and down is one and the same. (DK22B60)

    God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger, and it alters just as when it is mixed with incense is named according to the aroma of each. (DK22B67)

    The Word is eternal spirit, It is the father from the perspective of the spiritual realm and the Son as seen from the perspective of this earthly realm. It is unity in multiplicity.

    Regarding the polarity of forces here is an excerpt from “The Plant Between Sun and Earth” by George Adams and Olive Whicher:

    This, then, is the essential theory we are advancing:
    The processes of the spacial Universe involve not only the centric forces of which the prototype is gravity, but also the peripheral or planar type of force. “Negative spaces”, interpenetrating the ordinary space of Euclid, provide the field of action for these peripheral forces, even as the latter space – its parallel and orthological structure determining the composition and resolution of material movements and physical forces – is the domain of gravitational, electromagnetic and other centric forces. The two kinds of space and force constitute a true, qualitative polarity – the primary polarity of the spacial world, more fundamental probably than the point-to-point polarities of physics. To this polarity the projective Principle of Duality (Polarity) provides the ideal key. The phenomena we see around us are an expression of the interplay of the two opposite kinds of activity. In tendency, however, matter that falls out of the living process is predominantly subject to the centric type of forces, whereas in a living body, notably in regions of germination and vital growth, the peripheral type of forces will be in evidence, in addition to and to a greater or lesser degree transcending each other.

    This is an advancement of the usual one-sided way of looking at things.

  40. CharlieM: There are different laws that apply whether material is solid, liquid or gas,

    No, there aren’t.

  41. keiths, to KN:

    So they (Ladyman and Ross) are concerned here only with confirmation, not falsification? Otherwise it would seem that not even QM and GR would qualify as fundamental physics.

    KN:

    I don’t quite follow that line of reasoning.

    I’m just pointing that both QM and GR can be falsified — QM by gravity and GR by quantum effects. So if falsification were a consideration, neither theory would survive the “is it fundamental” test.

  42. Charlie,

    So would you accept that projective geometry involves more dynamic thinking than Euclidean geometry?

    No, for the same reasons I gave the last time around.

  43. Charlie:

    Your equation works fine for physical objects, especially solid objects.

    If you don’t think that 1+1+1=3 applies to liquid and gas, then you don’t understand the meaning of the equation.

  44. Charlie,

    Spirit is unity, matter is multiplicity.

    Then the Trinity doesn’t exist, by your own stipulation.

  45. keiths: I’m just pointing that both QM and GR can be falsified — QM by gravity and GR by quantum effects.

    They can be..? QM maybe… GR? Nuh…most of it is just the denial of the special relativity…

  46. Kantian Naturalist: One would need a working definition of what counts as “physically fundamental”.

    For what it’s worth, I like how Don Ross and James Ladyman define “physically fundamental” in Every Thing Must Go: a hypothesis belongs to fundamental physics if the hypothesis can be confirmed by measurements taken anywhere in the universe.So, biology does not belong to fundamental physics because biological hypotheses can be confirmed only at the space-time regions occupied by life.

    What I like about this definition is that it’s formal and operational: it leaves open the question as to which theories belong to fundamental physics, butt still specifies what we would need to in order to decide whether a theory belongs to fundamental physics or not.

    This definition also allows for multiple and even incompatible theories of fundamental physics (which is indeed the case in our current state of knowledge/ignorance).

    Interesting line of enquiry that I’ll need to have a closer look at. But from what I gather they base their philosophy on science with physics being somewhat primal. The atomic level being more fundamental than our experiential level of everyday objects, the sub-atomic level being more fundamental than the atomic level. And this continues down to further levels to who knows where.

    This would probably make a good topic for another thread.

  47. Kantian Naturalist:

    CharlieM: Energy is the equivalent of ‘fire’.

    That is completely and utterly false.

    I am talking about fire in the sense of one of the classical elements and not just what we see when we ignite combustible material.

    So in that respect anything above absolute zero temperature contains fire. Our physical bodies contain the four elements of earth, water, air and fire inasmuch as they contain solid matter, liquid and gaseous substances, and body heat. The three other principles we possess are super-sensible meaning they cannot be perceived directly with any of the five senses.

  48. Kantian Naturalist:

    CharlieM: There are different laws that apply whether material is solid, liquid or gas,

    No, there aren’t.

    Do you think that the combined gas law applies to solids? Or that the incompressibility of liquids applies equally to gasses?

  49. keiths:

    Charlie,

    So would you accept that projective geometry involves more dynamic thinking than Euclidean geometry?

    No, for the same reasons I gave the last time around.

    I know that there is no rigid dividing line between the two methods, they merge into each other. But do you not agree that Euclidean geometry is more concerned with pinning physical forms down to specific measurements? The distance between points, angles, areas, that sort of thing.

    I would say that trigonometry is to Euclidean geometry as Euclidean geometry is to projective geometry. The former being more restricted and specific forms of the latter. This does not make them inferior, just more focused.

    Projective geometry is not concerned with these sort of measurements, it is concerned with changing perspectives and forms in movement.

Leave a Reply