Is the Doctrine of the Trinity illogical? -- TySixtus vs. notapadawan

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between TySixtus and notapadawan who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: the Doctrine of the Trinity is illogical."

TySixtus will affirm and notapadawan will oppose. The debate will have 4 rounds and TySixtus will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4224075&postcount=20).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4224869#post4224869) is set up in the General Religious Discussions forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[TySixtus]

First and foremost, I’d like to thank IIDB for hosting this debate, KnightWhoSaysNi for moderating, and of course notapadawan for agreeing to debate me on this topic.

I proposed this debate because I find the concept of the Trinity to be utterly illogical, on several fronts. It violates the most basic forms of logic and logical thinking. It has little or no scriptural basis, except for what has been extrapolated ad nauseam since Arrius was denounced as a heretic. Most of these attempts of arguing the trinity into existence consist of poorly worded- even nonsensical- arguments that wouldn’t pass muster in an entry level course in logic or philosophy. Finally, even if we were to accept the truth of the trinity (as in, the truth of its actual existence) we would see its irrationality when Jesus was crucified on the cross.

My first round will consist of logical attacks against the concept of the Trinity.


The Law of Identity

The law of Identity is a tautology that states “A=A”. This is deceptively –perhaps even glibly- simple, but the simplicity revolves around the human ability to identify entities, indeed to even make sense of our universe. All of us, everyday, constantly use the law of identity. Humanity would not survive were our brains not equipped with at least some rudimentary form of object identification. The law of identity is just that: a sort of explanation for the brain's ability to delineate between objects. That is, A is A, and only A can be A. As soon as A becomes B, it is no longer A.

We shall apply this simple tautology to the Trinity.

As per the debate parameters, the Trinity is already defined and I will not reprint it here.

We could parse the explanation sentence by sentence, (and we shall) but for now let’s concentrate on the claim made here: Three divine Persons constitute the Godhead-the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit. They are one in substance, in power, and in eternity. Each is fully God, and yet the Godhead is one and indivisible.

For simplicity’s sake, let The Godhead = A, The Father = B, the Son = C, and the Holy Spirit = D.

The definition makes it abundantly clear that all of these three divine persons are “one in substance, in power, and in eternity”. With such forceful language, we are led to believe that they are one. However, if “they” are “one”, how can they be separate? If A = B + C + D, we are still left with three distinct entities. B does not become A in this equation, nor does C or D, but their addition equals A, yet another distinct entity as per the theist’s own definition. Even assuming that A = B + C + D, we still have a knotty problem. Wherein this proof do we go from A= B + C + D to A=A?

For example, let’s create another simple proof. Let P = “Mary”, and let Q = “Joe”. R is the sum of these two premises.

R= P+Q

What would a logical person take from this simple proof? Is R equal to “Mary and Joe”? Or is R equal to “MaryJoe”? Did we create a new entity by “adding” these two people together in our proof? Of course we didn’t. We simplified P and Q into one statement – R – and the two entities remain separate insofar as we understand that R is nothing but a shorthand way of saying “Mary and Joe”.

Let’s apply this reasoning to the Trinity. What does A equal? A= B + C + D? Or does it equal BCD? Are the entities still separate even though we’ve used a bit of shorthand to sum them up? Or have we created a new entity? But wait! Adding B + C + D doesn’t give us anything but A!

Either way, the true argument here relies upon the idea that even if B+C+D can become BCD, it still in no way becomes A. The Godhead – by definition – is a separate entity. It is therefore logically impossible for it to be any thing else. If the theist wishes to argue that it is a combination of other things, he must throw out: not to be divided in being.

The theist, in his claiming the truth of the trinity, wants us to accept that A is both A, and B + C + D, and BCD, and also B separately, and C separately, and D separately. In short, to believe the trinity we must throw out the Law of Identity. And once we do that, making claims about the nature of reality is nothing but sophistry. I would urge the reader to look over the logical proof a few times, and you’ll notice that it is ridiculously confusing and incoherent. This should tell us something.

If the Godhead exists, it is the Godhead. It cannot –save by magic or wishful thinking—be anything else. If the Godhead is the summation of those three other entities, then it is no longer one and indivisible. If each entity is fully God, then Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, as well as being -- not part of, but being in its totality, as per the definition of what it means to be -- the Godhead.

Modalistic accounts of the trinity – that a god has different roles or aspects – can at least be defended logically. The “Tri-Theistic” argument – that there are three distinct entities who act in concert with eachother – is also logically defensible.

The Protestant trinity doctrine doesn’t claim modality, and it doesn’t claim to be tri-theistic. Instead, it claims something that has no word in the English language, hence the best Christians can ever do to support their idea of the trinity is to argue by analogy. Which, I might add, I have no doubt my opponent will attempt to do.

[notapadawan]

First I would like to thank both KnightWhoSaysNi for moderating and TySixtus for proposing this debate. I'd also like to thank Bible John for introducing this site to me.

I accepted this debate because not only do I find the concept of the Trinity to be valid but also reasonable. It is utterly false to conclude that the Trinity has little or no support from Scripture. While it is true that many defenders of the Orthodox Trinitarian view do fail in presenting it logically, there have been many others that have done so.

My opponent here has presented the Law of Identity as his first argument. Since he is using “First Principles of Logic” I can already see how and where he is headed with his debate. The next couple of rounds he will attempt to use the “Law of Non-Contradiction”, the “Law of Excluded Middle”, and finally the “Law of Rational Inference”. Most Christians haven’t been exposed to Logic and rhetoric for whatever reason and would most likely be intimidated by its usage, yet they never realize just how much logic they use when reading the newspaper or reading a book. All Logic does is organize your thoughts into a rational order.

Now moving on from that foundation the Law of Identity is simple. It is simply nothing more than the law of definitions. The Trinity doesn’t violate this law because simply put, the Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The idea of the Godhead isn't "A=B+C+D" but rather "A=A X A X A".

Why would I argue that it is multiplication instead of addition? Easy. First if it can be proven from Scripture that all three are "God" then we either have to accept a modalistic god, a god in a loose confederation under the banner of “Godhead” or finally that a god is three united beings equaling one being, i.e. Trinity.

How can the Christian and Jewish God be both a plural and singular being? That does defy logic if one is employing the method used by my opponent. When one uses the mathematical formulae I gave it is crystal clear that all three can be God and yet still equal Godhead.

From Genesis 1:1 we can see the plurality of God. The Hebrew word “Elohim” is a plural form. The verb in the sentence is singular. In fact all through Scripture one can see the plural noun used with a singular verb. While this doesn’t “prove” the Trinity it does show the concept can exist within the framework of the Old Testament. When one opens up the New Testament, the Book of John opens up with: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This passage shows that the Trinity is very much a true and logical concept and doesn’t defy the first principle used in Logic as my opponent would have you believe.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

TySixtus, please note that your next statement is overdue. As the rules permit, you'll be granted a 3 day grace period.

Thank you for your consideration,

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[TySixtus]

I don’t know where to begin.

The title of this debate is “Is the doctrine of the Trinity logical?” Note, it does not say theological, or scriptural, or nice, or sane. It asks the question: Is the Trinity, as presented as a concept and as described in the opening parameters of the debate, logical? That is, does it follow and abide by the rules of logic when an explanation is attempted?

Notapadawn seems to think so, but as Inigo Montoya once pointed to his Sicilian boss, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

Let’s parse his post.

My opponent here has presented the Law of Identity as his first argument. Since he is using “First Principles of Logic” I can already see how and where he is headed with his debate. The next couple of rounds he will attempt to use the “Law of Non-Contradiction”, the “Law of Excluded Middle”, and finally the “Law of Rational Inference”. Most Christians haven’t been exposed to Logic and rhetoric for whatever reason and would most likely be intimidated by its usage, yet they never realize just how much logic they use when reading the newspaper or reading a book. All Logic does is organize your thoughts into a rational order.

First of all, my opponent’s predictions are wrong. I am not going to use the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle simply because I do not need them. The Law of Identity is all we need as logical, rational human beings to dismiss the Trinity as nonsense.


Second, my opponent admits (probably unintentionally) that he doesn’t know what logic is. It is not an external force that organizes things like “thoughts”. Logic is the study of valid ways to make both inferences and demonstrations. Logic, like mathematics, will exist whether or not notapadawan know what it is or how it works.

In a more formal sense, logic as a science is devoted to investigating claims and arguments. This is how it is being used now, in this debate. For it to be casually dismissed by my opponent as “just a way of organizing your thoughts” is to insult the study of logic and it’s contributions to mankind since it was first discovered. It is also exceedingly ignorant.

Quite frankly, I fail to see how this debate will come to a conclusion if my opponent doesn’t know what the word “logical” means.

Now moving on from that foundation the Law of Identity is simple. It is simply nothing more than the law of definitions. The Trinity doesn’t violate this law because simply put, the Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The idea of the Godhead isn't "A=B+C+D" but rather "A=A X A X A".

What we see here is notapadawan defining the Trinity into existence. I ask, “How can the Trinity be three things in one, yet separate?”

What is the answer? “Because that’s what the Trinity is.”

Simply brilliant. I may as well pack up and go home. This is an assertion; which, by the way, is the whole reason I suggested this debate Assertions like these abound, grounded in post-modernist nonsense, poor thinking and in some cases, outright magic. notapadawan hasn’t shown us the line of his reasoning. He has merely asserted. This is absolutely worthless in the field of logic. Assertions mean nothing, only valid premises and conclusions.

Additionally, he shows us a lack of even cursory knowledge when it comes to formal logical proofs. One does not multiply premises. The very idea is absolutely, 100% ridiculous. It fails on every conceivable level of meaning. It is utter garbage. In fact, we can’t really “add” premises either, which was the whole point of my first post. We cannot add premises, and we cannot add beings. Again, to suggest this requires some decent argumentation. Thus far, we have seen none.

Why would I argue that it is multiplication instead of addition?

Let's find out.

Easy. First if it can be proven from Scripture that all three are "God" then we either have to accept a modalistic god, a god in a loose confederation under the banner of “Godhead” or finally that a god is three united beings equaling one being, i.e. Trinity.

First of all, we are not concerned with what can be proven by scripture. I’m an atheist. Does notapadawan think those arguments are going to be in any way convincing? And anyway, wasn’t the purpose of this debate to show the Trinity as logical, and not true by scriptural standards?

The second part of his paragraph is yet more assertions. Assertions, assertions, assertions. No arguments, no logic. Assertions.


How can the Christian and Jewish God be both a plural and singular being?

They cannot. That is the whole point of this debate. As of now, we have yet to see the reasoning behind yet another assertion.

That does defy logic if one is employing the method used by my opponent.

This “method” is known in scientific circles as “logic” or even “common sense”.

When one uses the mathematical formulae I gave it is crystal clear that all three can be God and yet still equal Godhead.

Without raining too heavily on one’s parade, notapadawan’s “formulae” are neither clear nor mathematical. They are nonsense.

As I predicted when I suggested this debate, we are seeing an almost total lack of logic by the party claiming the Trinity is logical. Every argument a Christian makes about the Trinity is doomed to fail because it ignores the fundamental reality of the Law of Identity. A=A. This is perhaps some grim grammar for someone who needs room in which to wiggle. None is offered. Instead, the Law of Identity requires my opponent to show how a being can be both three beings and one being, separate but together, individual but collective, and all of these adjectives at the same time. I’m actually quite surprised that the “Three Forms of Water” argument hasn’t been trotted out yet. It’d be right up my opponent’s alley of poor arguments that don’t make sense.


Ty

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

TySixtus, please note that your statement exceeded the word limit agreed to from the parameters by about 23 words (excluding vbb text). The statement will be accepted as is, but please try to keep future statement within the limit.

Thank you,

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[notapadawan]

Since TySixtus doesn't understand what the Law of Identity is I'll try to help him.

Law of Identity as a concept is "A = A". Whatever A is, it is equal to its definition. If I told you to meet me at the Santa Monica Pier, you wouldn't go to the Glendale Galleria and look for me. Why? Simple, the Law of Identity states that whatever the Santa Monica Pier is, that is what it is.

Since the Trinity is A, whatever makes up the Trinity needs to be considered A. A = A. Trinity = Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

TySixtus needs to show why the Law of Identity shows it to be utter nonsense.

[TySixtus]

Since TySixtus doesn't understand what the Law of Identity is I'll try to help him.

Oooh goody.

Law of Identity as a concept is "A = A". Whatever A is, it is equal to its definition. If I told you to meet me at the Santa Monica Pier, you wouldn't go to the Glendale Galleria and look for me. Why? Simple, the Law of Identity states that whatever the Santa Monica Pier is, that is what it is.

Correct. The Santa Monica Pier is A. Your mental gymnastics attempting to argue the Trinity into existence amount to -- if I may stick to the analogy -- that the Santa Monica Pier is also My Yacht that is parked there, and the Cotton Candy stand nearby. Except, the Cotton Candy stand and my Yacht are all separate from the Pier. Oh, and the Pier is separate from the Pier, too, but somehow all of these things are together. But separate. But together. Etc.

Since the Trinity is A, whatever makes up the Trinity needs to be considered A. A = A. Trinity = Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

In other words, you are adhering to a polytheistic view of the trinity, in that all three beings are separate but they are given a name as a group. Much like Kirk Hammet, Lars Ulrich, James Hetfield and Jason Newstead are all seperate people, but together they make up Metallica. Of course, none of these guys are Metallica- Metallica is a concept that we use to refer to them as a group, and the music they put out as part of this group.

But it would be silly to suggest that Metallica is a person, right? Or that James Hetfield is Metallica, but also isn't Metallica, right? We could say that he is part of Metallica, and that is all we can say.


TySixtus needs to show why the Law of Identity shows it to be utter nonsense.

I regret to inform you and the readers that I have already done so.

Honestly, if you are going to keep asserting that the Trinity is God and Holy Spirit and Jesus, you are missing the point of the formal debate. You are supposed to show how it is logically possible for a thing to be three things but separate. Not a group of things that are given a name. Of course, you can suggest this if you want, but then you are in conflict with the very definition of the Trinity that you decided we should use. I should add that you are not using this definition. You picked a definition of Trinity, and have thus far not defended it; you are defending something else.

Ty

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

notapadawan, please note that your next statement is overdue. However, you will have a grace period until April 7.

Thank you for your consideration,

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[notapadawan]

"Three divine Persons constitute the Godhead-the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit. They are one in substance, in power, and in eternity. Each is fully God, and yet the Godhead is one and indivisible. The Father owes His being to none. He is Father to the Son who is eternally begotten of Him. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. These Persons, one infinite and eternal God not to be divided in being, are distinguished in Scripture by their personal nature or in relations within the Godhead, and by the variety of works which they undertake. Their tri-unity (that is, the doctrine of the Trinity) is the essential basis of all our fellowship with God, and of the comfort we derive from our dependence upon Him."

This is the definition of the Trinity we agreed upon. It is constructed from the Bible. Since you reject the Bible as a proper source to discuss a concept that is founded in it, what use is there to discuss anything. Our concept of time is constructed of a "trinity" of sorts. Past, present, and future all make up the concept of time. Each is distinct and seperate yet I haven't seen anyone call time illogical and use such a silly argument as yourself.

[TySixtus]

It is obvious to me as I write this that notapadawan has missed the boat entirely. He even admits to it:

This is the definition of the Trinity we agreed upon. It is constructed from the Bible. Since you reject the Bible as a proper source to discuss a concept that is founded in it, what use is there to discuss anything.

Three things immediately jump out. First, notapadawan knew, at the start of this debate, that using scripture to prove a logical argument would be invalid. Indeed, the very title of the debate (Is the Trinity Logical?) demands the question be answered by way of logic, and not scripture.

Second, notapadawan should know by know that scriptural arguments won’t work on an atheist. See my first reason for more details.

Third, he full out admits that there is no use in discussing anything. This is funny, because he engaged me in discussion, formally. Since Christians love analogies, I’ll attempt one. This is kind of like a person challenging someone on, say, the Trinity, and after clearly losing the argument on the grounds of logic, asserting that there was never anything to talk about anyway.

I guess I’m terrible at analogies. But I think we all get the point. Notapadawan has failed to present a logically cogent argument in his favor. He presents impossible formulae which require impossible acts of multiplication. He asserts, over and over again, that the Bible says the Trinity exists. I am forced to remind him that Norse mythology constantly asserts the existence of giants and magical mead cauldrons. In no case should either of these assertions be taken at face value.

If the only way you can ever fully explain a phenomenon is by way of analogy, there is a problem with your concept. Notapadawan assured us that he wasn’t a Modalistic Trinitarian, nor was he a polytheistic Trinitarian. Ergo, analogies about water and time are vacuous and completely without worth in the scope of this debate, as they are assigned by their nature to either one of these categories.

I think the Catholic Church was pretty smart to officially define the Trinity as a Mystery. I think they realized that sooner or later, someone was going to catch on to their nonsense. Unfortunately, some other groups of Christians didn’t get the memo.

Ty

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

notapadawan, please note that your concluding statement is overdue. You will be granted a grace period of 48 hours from the time of this post to submit your statement.

Thank you for your consideration

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

notapadawan's grace period has recently expired. The formal debate is therefore now complete. We would like to thank notapadawan and TySixtus for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- KWSN, FD Moderator