Apply PHILOSOPHY to the argument of the TRINITY

by Terry 76 Replies latest watchtower bible

Terry

And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
Using words to assert a state of being which contradicts the reality of itself is pure sophistry.
Do any of us actually believe nobody CONFOUNDS the persons in the definition of unity in the Trinity?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Dr.Seuss created creatures of his imagination and illustrators illustrated them. We aren't confounded by them or their appearance or their actions in the stories. Why?
BECAUSE WE AREN'T TOLD THEY ARE REAL!
Imagine being told they are real and insisting that this isn't confounding!
See what happens?
ALL OF YOUR LIFE you have been given to believe TWO OPERATING SYSTEMS of understanding, analysis and knowledge which are not compatible.
When you use the one that works (Primacy of Existence) you succeed in understanding and using your knowledge.
When you use the other one that doesn't work (Primacy of Consciousness) you become confused and conflicted and struggle.
Why not discover the cause of your conflicts and resolve them??
That's all I'm offering here. A better mousetrap.
Terry

A philosopher is free to pontificate on the subject of gods to infinitum because the number of gods one can believe in is only limited by one's imagination and the desire to believe.
There is one who seeks to understand the true nature of what really exists, who wants to integrate that knowledge and use it succesfully in everyday life. That is the Philosopher.
There is one who seeks to pretend to understand the truer nature, the supernature of what he pretends exists and use that imaginary invention to mystify others and bind them to his creed. That is the Sophist, the Mystic, the Priest and the Guru.
Philosophy has been badly mistreated by society. A Philosophy student is an egghead who questions his own existence and insists nothing is real or who seeks to "prove" we are our own mind.
That, folks, is what has deteriorated into "Philosophy" in Colleges and Universities. It is SOPHISTRY, claptrap and nonsense.
Accept no substitutes for the real thing.
Don't confuse PRIMACY of consciousness with PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE.
Terry

I think that this point reinforces the point that I made in my earlier post. The only way to apply philosophy to the concept of the Trinity is to study the Trinity as a historical "entity" which has evolved over time.
As I've repeatedly said here, we either CAN or CANNOT recognize the difference between what is actual, metaphysical, real and genuine and what is man made, imaginary, mythical and constructed to appear genuine.
Your post is an excellent point that serves to enforce the obvious reality that the TRINITY is man made and describes no reality.
Now we have the tools to demonstrate that: the self-contradictory nature of three natures defined as one nature while being simultaneously equal.
What we always suspected is brought out into the open by the tool of Philosophy.
See how that works?
Carlos_Helms

Not to throw a wrench in the works, Terry; but there is also the "c. I don't know" option. I can define "oneness" several commonly accepted ways in the corporeal realm; but I have greater difficulty in applying those definitions to the spirit realm, where I have little to no measurable experience.

The Bible explains the relationship between YHWH and Jesus as "father and son," for my clarity. I accept that description. The Bible also applies a "oneness of purpose" to the two. This I can also conceptualize because it falls within the realm of my experience. The "third person of the holy trinity" can, I suppose (although, philosophically, it's a little shaky due to multiple definitions), be included by extension and the fact that Jesus personalizes the holy spirit (defined by him as 'helper' or 'comforter').

Good game though! It's fun!

Carlos
Terry

If they can't admit to seeing a glaring conflict in their belief system. Then there is little hope that they might see your reason or admit it is good.
Conflict is a signal.
Conflict and contradiction and confusion is a red flag.
The signal and the red flag are an alarm bell for your rational mind to grapple with; LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE!!
Where is the lie?
That is what we grapple with when we detect conflict, contradiction and confusion.
Where is the false premise?
What underlying definition or anti-concept is lurking beneath our confusion?
Using Philisophical tools we can root out the cause in the doctrine of the TRINITY.
The definition is a description which identifies the nature of a thing and distinguishes it from other things which are NOT the same.
The FATHER is not THE SAME as the son. Otherwise, why would we have to distinguish them by using separate terms????
Two things which are NOT the SAME cannot be EQUAL!!!
End of confusion.
Conclusion: the definitions of Trinity are manmade and imaginative.
the TRINITY describes an entity of imagination and not anything real.
Smooth as silk.
Terry

The Trinity is truly a mystery...Like electricity, radio, TV, and jumbo-jets
The Trinity must remain a contradiction of natures unlike electricity, radio and Tv or jumbo jets because none of the latter are defined by COMPONENTS ALL EQUAL TO EACH OTHER in nature!!
How we define a thing separates it from what it is not as well as including it with what is the same.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have separate names, modes of identification, means of expression, levels of awareness, etc. all of which DISTINGUISH one nature from the other.
It is in distinguishing one a separate from the others the contradiction of nature as being equal is revealed to the rational mind and identifies the species (differentia) as man made and imaginary.
Thanks to Philosophy.
Terry

I have greater difficulty in applying those definitions to the spirit realm, where I have little to no measurable experience.
I can't blame you for not actually reading my entire posting on this. That's asking alot of anybody.
There are only TWO ways of thinking about the world. One is real and one is imaginary.
We can't mix the two and call them equal.
Philsophy has methods for gaining information and turning it into useful knowledge. Philosophy failed when it introduced the imaginary method in place of the real method.
Aristotle can very close. Plato didn't.
All of philosophy stems from those two schools of thought.
Aristotle gave us the beginnings of Logic which is the art of non-contradictory thinking.
Plato gave us "forms" which are things in your head more real than reality itself!
Fast forward thousands of years.....
You can only have the real world, Carlos, or the pretend real(er) world :)
You can have truth or imaginary super truth.
You can have nature or supernature.
The SPIRIT realm, heaven, God, deity, etc. is the ____other___-choice.
That comes from human imagination and does not obey the laws of Identity or Causality or Logic because it is colorful lying!
When you try to mix the two (Real and Manmade) you get mystery and confusion and contradiction.
If you are Intellectually honest you run screaming from contradictions. You do NOT embrace them. They signal LIES.
If you are "enlightened" and mystical you embrace contradictions and fall down the rabbithole of Primacy of Consciousness where the game is played deuces wild.
Your choice, Carlos.
Make the one that works for you.
Terry

WHAT IS IDENTITY?
A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be simultaneously all red and all green, it cannot burn and freeze at the same moment. To EXIST is to be something--as distinguished from--the nothing of non-existence. Existence exists. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is IDENTIFICATION.
To Exist means to have specific attributes which ARE---not attributes which AREN'T at the same time!
A characteristic is an aspect of existence. A characteristic is something you make up and apply willy-nilly!
What is the LAW OF IDENTITY?
A thing is what it IS. It cannot simultaneously be what it is NOT.
Consciousness is identification of what things exist and what they are.
1.Awareness of objects--of things
2.Awareness of particular things, specific things, distinguished from---other--things
3.Integration of particulars into a body of concepts
The TRINITY is a set of self-contradictory definitions about the nature of a non-natural entity (imaginary).
DT

Terry,
This is a very interesting thread. I don't feel prepared to jump into the debate. I just have a few questions, in case you or anyone would like to address them.
What about quantum mechanics? Certain fundamental properties of matter seem contradictory. For example, there is the wave particle duality of matter, where particles also behave like waves and vice versa. How would you apply your reasoning to the concepts of waves and particles? Perhaps you could even argue that this kind of contradiction is similar to what is described by the trinity. (Of course, the trinity isn't supported by experimental evidence like the wave particle duality of matter.)
Quantum mechanics also seems to provide support for the idea that consciousness may have an effect on the material world. Could it be that the distinction between the two views that you are discussing break down at a fundamental level? I agree with much of your reasoning, but have to wonder about its limitations.
Terry

This is a very interesting thread. I don't feel prepared to jump into the debate. I just have a few questions, in case you or anyone would like to address them.
What about quantum mechanics? Certain fundamental properties of matter seem contradictory. For example, there is the wave particle duality of matter, where particles also behave like waves and vice versa. How would you apply your reasoning to the concepts of waves and particles? Perhaps you could even argue that this kind of contradiction is similar to what is described by the trinity. (Of course, the trinity isn't supported by experimental evidence like the wave particle duality of matter.)
Quantum mechanics also seems to provide support for the idea that consciousness may have an effect on the material world. Could it be that the distinction between the two views that you are discussing break down at a fundamental level? I agree with much of your reasoning, but have to wonder about its limitations.
First off, thanks for the question. It is a good one.
Distinguish between the phenomena...............and................the description of it.
Why?
The way in which something is described (especially with language that is not mathematical) can contain metaphor because language is largely a PRACTICAL invention that deals with non-quantum events.
Secondly, think about this. Very small particles and events can only be known and observed by us when we INTERACT with that world.
Think of giants and tiny midgets playing football. What happens when the giants collide with the midgets? VIOLENT interaction!
We bounce either light or electrons off of quanta to get our report.
When we bounce anything off quanta we INTERFERE with its location and its path in some way.
That is why we can EITHER know the location or the path---but--never both. Observation CHANGES path or location by the violent collision of light waves or electrons.
If you describe this using certain mysterious words and phrases it can sound mystical.
Language is the problem---not the phenomena.
When we observe or measure very small things we are like missionaries in a radically different culture. We INTERPRET in terms of OUR WORLD what we see. If we aren't careful we are labeling things "primitive" and "savage" willy nilly.
Whether we have a wave or we have a particle is largely a function of HOW we are detecting and measuring. The oscillation between wave and particle is a function of how we employ methodology.
We fit the data into a pre-existing EXPECTATION.
When the aborigines first saw the Spanaird arrive on horseback ---what they "saw" was half-man and half-horse! They saw "Gods".
They laid their conceptual vocabulary over events that the vocabulary had not been invented to describe. The result of such meetings is the very "mysterious" interpretions of ordinary and natural events.
NEVER CONFUSE an interpretation with an actual thing being described.
In a court of law the least accurate testimony is often EYEWITNESS.
Why? Our consciousness operates in terms of predictability and ordinariness.
To fit what we encounter when it is unpredictable and extraordinary results in a disconnect between observation and description.
Even in science.

Apply PHILOSOPHY to the argument of the TRINITY

Share this