Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

more than one omnipotent God is impossible.

lightseeker
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 6:25:28 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
all right.
I write this to prove that trinity is not possible (or I haven't understood it perfectly.)
according to the beliefs of Christians, there are three beings (Father, Son, Holy spirit) which are all omniscient and omnipotent.

now, if you're an omnipotent being, it means that you have all the power that can exist and if you're an omniscient being, it means that you have all the knowledge that can exist.

so, why 3 different beings being simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient is impossible?
because being omnipotent means having power over all, and not have anything else have any power over you. because if they have any power over you, then it means that you're not omnipotent, right? so if the Father has power over the Son, then the Son can't be omnipotent ...
so, these being can't have any power over each other if they're to be omnipotent. but, not having any power over another being, means that you're not omnipotent. because you're not having all the power that can exist.
so, these three can't be simultaneously omnipotent.

so, only one of these can be omnipotent.

the same can be said about being omniscient and other divine attributes of these three beings.

so, the son and the holy spirit aren't really Gods. they're just creations of God and God has complete control over them. God could kill Jesus and his mother and all humans in the world, and no one could stop him.

also, we can use something similar to this to determine that God doesn't have any children and Jesus is not the Son of God.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 6:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
All things come in threes. Except for the bookofthrees.com, because I think there was only one of those books written which kills this whole idea. Or maybe not. Let's take a look:

" This theory is concerned with the fact that all things come in threes, try of which there are numerous examples (see Appendix). The whole of anything is comprised of 3 parts. All 3 of these parts have something in common, which gives the appearance of a whole. The 3 parts are divided into a ratio of 1:2, of which two are the same as each other in some respect and one is different. Herein lays the stability of this theory, as it must always be two of the same and one different because when reversed, the single part would have nothing to be the same as. However, all 3 parts are interlinking with each other. Each part has something in common with every other part and they both have a difference with the other part. For example, parts one, two and three can be shown as A, B and C respectively.

A and B have a common link with each other, but both different from C
A and C have a common link with each other, but both different from B
B and C have a common link with each other, but both different from A."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:14:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
You have one misunderstanding about the Trinity, but you can easily adjust your argument to account for it. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct beings. They are the same being. The distinction is in personhood. According to the Trinity, there is one being--God--but three distinct persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So you could adjust your argument by saying that if the Father is fully God, then the Father is omnipotent, and if the Son is also fully God, then the son is also omnipotent. That would require that one person have omnipotence over another person, which is not possible. You could go that route.

I don't think the argument is sound, though, even with the adjustment. Before "omnipotence" can be a coherent concept, it must have logical constraints. It's meaningless to say something like, "I exist, and I also don't exist" because it entails a contradiction. You can't tell from the statement whether the person exists or not. So omnipotence cannot carry with it it a meaning that entails the ability to engage in meaningless tasks--like existing and not existing at the same time and in the same tense. An omnipotent being could not create a square circle or cause a necessarily true statement to be false.

The idea of one omnipotent being overpowering another omnipotent being poses just that kind of incoherence. It's basically saying that one being has the power to stop another being that cannot be stopped. It's incoherent. So omnipotence cannot entail the ability to overpower an omnipotent being.

Just as the inability of an omnipotent being to make cubed spheres doesn't count against power, so also the inability of an omnipotent being to overpower another omnipotent being wouldn't count against power either since both scenarios entails logical contradictions and are basically incoherent states of affairs.

Now, you might insist that if omnipotence is real, it must include the ability to engage in logical absurdities. It can't be constrained in any way. But then your whole objection would go away because if an omnipotent being existed, then it could be overpower even if it couldn't be overpowered. It could be omnipotent even if it wasn't omnipotent. If you insist that "omnipotence" must include the ability to engage in logically incoherent states of affairs, you've basically robbed the word of any significant meaning, and you've lost the ability to prove or disprove that a being could be omnipotent.

If your argument were sound, it would not only disprove more than one omnipotent being, it would also disprove the existence of any omnipotent being at all. You could argue that if a being were omnipotent, then it could overcome itself. It could beat itself in an arm wrestling match. Or, it would have the power to create another omnipotent being. But if you say that the inability to defeat itself doesn't count against power, then you must say the inability to defeat another omnipotent being doesn't count against power either.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
lightseeker
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 7:14:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
You have one misunderstanding about the Trinity, but you can easily adjust your argument to account for it. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct beings. They are the same being. The distinction is in personhood. According to the Trinity, there is one being--God--but three distinct persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So you could adjust your argument by saying that if the Father is fully God, then the Father is omnipotent, and if the Son is also fully God, then the son is also omnipotent. That would require that one person have omnipotence over another person, which is not possible. You could go that route.

I don't think the argument is sound, though, even with the adjustment. Before "omnipotence" can be a coherent concept, it must have logical constraints. It's meaningless to say something like, "I exist, and I also don't exist" because it entails a contradiction. You can't tell from the statement whether the person exists or not. So omnipotence cannot carry with it it a meaning that entails the ability to engage in meaningless tasks--like existing and not existing at the same time and in the same tense. An omnipotent being could not create a square circle or cause a necessarily true statement to be false.

The idea of one omnipotent being overpowering another omnipotent being poses just that kind of incoherence. It's basically saying that one being has the power to stop another being that cannot be stopped. It's incoherent. So omnipotence cannot entail the ability to overpower an omnipotent being.

Just as the inability of an omnipotent being to make cubed spheres doesn't count against power, so also the inability of an omnipotent being to overpower another omnipotent being wouldn't count against power either since both scenarios entails logical contradictions and are basically incoherent states of affairs.

Now, you might insist that if omnipotence is real, it must include the ability to engage in logical absurdities. It can't be constrained in any way. But then your whole objection would go away because if an omnipotent being existed, then it could be overpower even if it couldn't be overpowered. It could be omnipotent even if it wasn't omnipotent. If you insist that "omnipotence" must include the ability to engage in logically incoherent states of affairs, you've basically robbed the word of any significant meaning, and you've lost the ability to prove or disprove that a being could be omnipotent.

If your argument were sound, it would not only disprove more than one omnipotent being, it would also disprove the existence of any omnipotent being at all. You could argue that if a being were omnipotent, then it could overcome itself. It could beat itself in an arm wrestling match. Or, it would have the power to create another omnipotent being. But if you say that the inability to defeat itself doesn't count against power, then you must say the inability to defeat another omnipotent being doesn't count against power either.

well, let's use your examples:
an omnipotent being can't create cubed spheres because there's no such thing as cubed spheres. concepts or words that have no possibility of coming to existence aren't really things and since an omnipotent is a being that can do every thing, this power doesn't cover the creation of concepts that aren't really things. and we can create a lot of these concepts or plays with words, that can't become real things.

that part you understood right.

but, an omnipotent having power over another omnipotent is impossible, because it's logically impossible to have more than one omnipotent being. it's not logically impossible to have an omnipotent being, but having two of those (which are different) is impossible. so, if there can exist no such thing as cubed spheres, there can exist no such thing as two omnipotent beings. it's against logic.

so, the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are either both exactly the same being (not separated from each other because separation of omnipresent beings is also illogical) with the same essence, or there's no such thing as the Father, ...
fishhunter61
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:34:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 6:25:28 PM, lightseeker wrote:
according to the beliefs of Christians, there are three beings (Father, Son, Holy spirit) which are all omniscient and omnipotent.
The father, son and the holy spirit is one being ....

If you still don't understand, look at this quote:
"the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit"as one God in three Divine Persons".
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:43:50 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
How would an omnipotent being end its existence (AKA die on the cross) and then establish its existence two days later. How does an omnipotent being make a death payment with its "life"? All this goes against god's immutable nature.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:53:29 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 7:32:28 PM, lightseeker wrote:

but, an omnipotent having power over another omnipotent is impossible, because it's logically impossible to have more than one omnipotent being.

This is circular reasoning. You started this thread to show that "more than one omnipotent God is impossible." That was your conclusion. But now, your use of the word "because" in the above sentence shows that it's a premise in your argument. You are arguing. . .

It's "logically impossible to have more than one omnipotent being," therefore, "an omnipotent having power over another omnipotent is impossible," therefore, "more than one omnipotent God is impossible."

Basically, you're arguing in a circle.

it's not logically impossible to have an omnipotent being, but having two of those (which are different) is impossible.

I've already shown that if your argument against two omnipotent beings is sound, then it would prove that even one omnipotent being is impossible. If you grant that an omnipotent being is, unlike a cubed sphere, logically coherent, then you cannot object to the creation of an omnipotent being for the same reason that you would object to the creation of a cubed sphere. Since you cannot object to the creation of another omnipotent being on that same basis--logical incoherence or meaninglessness--then you must come up with some other grounds for why an omnipotent being couldn't create another omnipotent being and still be omnipotent. Or, you've got to concede that they could, which would undermine your whole argument.

Also, if omnipotence means the ability to overcome anyone, regardless of how much power they have, then an omnipotent being ought to be able to overcome itself, which would mean that it was not omnipotent.

I think you need to give a clear definition of "omnipotent." If you agree with me that omnipotence does not include the ability to actually logically impossible states of affairs, then would have to conclude with me that two omnipotent beings are possible. After all, a state of affairs in which one omnipotent beings overpowers another omnipotent being is every bit as incoherent as a spherical cube. Spheres can exist and cubes can exist, but a sphere can't be a cube. In the same way, an omnipotent being can exist, and another omnipotent being can exist, but one can't overpower the other.

so, if there can exist no such thing as cubed spheres, there can exist no such thing as two omnipotent beings. it's against logic.

The existence of the omnipotent beings isn't logically impossible. What's logically impossible is that one can overpower the other. But since overpowering an omnipotent being is logically impossible, and omnipotence doesn't include the ability to engage in logical impossible tasks, then the inability of an omnipotent being to overpower another omnipotent being doesn't count against the first omnipotent being's power. So it's possible for both to be omnipotent even if they cannot overpower each other.

so, the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are either both exactly the same being (not separated from each other because separation of omnipresent beings is also illogical) with the same essence, or there's no such thing as the Father, ...

According to the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE the same being. The one being--God--is tri-personal.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 7:43:50 PM, missmedic wrote:
How would an omnipotent being end its existence (AKA die on the cross) and then establish its existence two days later. How does an omnipotent being make a death payment with its "life"? All this goes against god's immutable nature.

No Christian, as far as I'm aware, thinks that God ceased to exist on the cross. Unitarians, like Jehovah's Witnesses, believe Jesus ceased to exist when he died on the cross, but they do not believe that Jesus is Jehovah. Jehovah, in their view, did not die on the cross and never ceased to exist.

Trinitarians believe that Jesus died physically on the cross, but did not cease to exist. Besides that, Trinitarians do not believe the Father or the Holy Spirit died on the cross, must less ceased to exist.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:05:00 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
They're not three different beings in Trinitarian canon. They're the same being. Christians take great pains to make this clear to me.
lightseeker
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 9:13:35 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 7:53:29 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 7:32:28 PM, lightseeker wrote:

but, an omnipotent having power over another omnipotent is impossible, because it's logically impossible to have more than one omnipotent being.

This is circular reasoning. You started this thread to show that "more than one omnipotent God is impossible." That was your conclusion. But now, your use of the word "because" in the above sentence shows that it's a premise in your argument. You are arguing. . .

It's "logically impossible to have more than one omnipotent being," therefore, "an omnipotent having power over another omnipotent is impossible," therefore, "more than one omnipotent God is impossible."

Basically, you're arguing in a circle.

it's not logically impossible to have an omnipotent being, but having two of those (which are different) is impossible.

I've already shown that if your argument against two omnipotent beings is sound, then it would prove that even one omnipotent being is impossible. If you grant that an omnipotent being is, unlike a cubed sphere, logically coherent, then you cannot object to the creation of an omnipotent being for the same reason that you would object to the creation of a cubed sphere. Since you cannot object to the creation of another omnipotent being on that same basis--logical incoherence or meaninglessness--then you must come up with some other grounds for why an omnipotent being couldn't create another omnipotent being and still be omnipotent. Or, you've got to concede that they could, which would undermine your whole argument.

Also, if omnipotence means the ability to overcome anyone, regardless of how much power they have, then an omnipotent being ought to be able to overcome itself, which would mean that it was not omnipotent.

I think you need to give a clear definition of "omnipotent." If you agree with me that omnipotence does not include the ability to actually logically impossible states of affairs, then would have to conclude with me that two omnipotent beings are possible. After all, a state of affairs in which one omnipotent beings overpowers another omnipotent being is every bit as incoherent as a spherical cube. Spheres can exist and cubes can exist, but a sphere can't be a cube. In the same way, an omnipotent being can exist, and another omnipotent being can exist, but one can't overpower the other.

so, if there can exist no such thing as cubed spheres, there can exist no such thing as two omnipotent beings. it's against logic.

The existence of the omnipotent beings isn't logically impossible. What's logically impossible is that one can overpower the other. But since overpowering an omnipotent being is logically impossible, and omnipotence doesn't include the ability to engage in logical impossible tasks, then the inability of an omnipotent being to overpower another omnipotent being doesn't count against the first omnipotent being's power. So it's possible for both to be omnipotent even if they cannot overpower each other.

so, the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are either both exactly the same being (not separated from each other because separation of omnipresent beings is also illogical) with the same essence, or there's no such thing as the Father, ...

According to the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE the same being. The one being--God--is tri-personal.

lets first define what omnipotence mean.
the quality of having unlimited power is what I call omnipotence.

so, according to this definition, it's impossible to have more than one omnipotent being. because more than one, is a limit by itself. actually when we say there is one God, we're not trying to count God. because only limited things can be counted. because to count something, you first have to be able to define that thing in a unit. God is not defined that way. I only say there's one God, because he's unique. nothing is like it. is not countable. is before and after everything else. everything else exist because of God. and God is the pure existence.

so in short, we can't have two omnipotent being. because that would create a contradiction (which is having unlimited power and not unlimited power at the same time)

this is not circular reasoning. it's logical reasoning. according to that definition, you're either omnipotent and unique, or you're not.

and about God being a tri-personal being:
does the true God need those three personalities?
and what difference does those three have to make them different from each other?
when God was living as Jesus, did he need to eat and sleep (because we know that he did).
when God was in one personality, does it mean that he's not in the other two?
how can an omnipresent God have three different personalities?
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 9:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
The "trinity" is not intended to mean there are three different gods. It's referring to three distinct conceptual manifestations of one omni-God.

"God the Father" referring to that aspect of God that exists apart from us, and transcends our nature and comprehension.

"God the Son" referring to that aspect of God that in manifested in and through humanity, as God's creation, and as exemplified by "Jesus the Christ".

"God the holy spirit" referring to God's spirit or nature within our own hearts and mind, that we can use to guide us if we are willing follow it.

The trinity is not about there being three separate gods. It's about there being three different ways in which God manifests, relative to us: externally, internally, and spiritually.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 10:09:14 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 9:36:18 PM, PureX wrote:
The "trinity" is not intended to mean there are three different gods. It's referring to three distinct conceptual manifestations of one omni-God.

"God the Father" referring to that aspect of God that exists apart from us, and transcends our nature and comprehension.

"God the Son" referring to that aspect of God that in manifested in and through humanity, as God's creation, and as exemplified by "Jesus the Christ".

"God the holy spirit" referring to God's spirit or nature within our own hearts and mind, that we can use to guide us if we are willing follow it.

The trinity is not about there being three separate gods. It's about there being three different ways in which God manifests, relative to us: externally, internally, and spiritually.

That's one of the most convincing explanations of the Trinity I've ever heard. Well said.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Willows
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 10:36:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 6:25:28 PM, lightseeker wrote:
all right.
I write this to prove that trinity is not possible (or I haven't understood it perfectly.)
according to the beliefs of Christians, there are three beings (Father, Son, Holy spirit) which are all omniscient and omnipotent.

now, if you're an omnipotent being, it means that you have all the power that can exist and if you're an omniscient being, it means that you have all the knowledge that can exist.

so, why 3 different beings being simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient is impossible?
because being omnipotent means having power over all, and not have anything else have any power over you. because if they have any power over you, then it means that you're not omnipotent, right? so if the Father has power over the Son, then the Son can't be omnipotent ...
so, these being can't have any power over each other if they're to be omnipotent. but, not having any power over another being, means that you're not omnipotent. because you're not having all the power that can exist.
so, these three can't be simultaneously omnipotent.

so, only one of these can be omnipotent.

the same can be said about being omniscient and other divine attributes of these three beings.

so, the son and the holy spirit aren't really Gods. they're just creations of God and God has complete control over them. God could kill Jesus and his mother and all humans in the world, and no one could stop him.

also, we can use something similar to this to determine that God doesn't have any children and Jesus is not the Son of God.

Whether all three are one or one is all three is irrelevant.
There is no such thing as any of them.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:31:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 9:13:35 PM, lightseeker wrote:

lets first define what omnipotence mean.
the quality of having unlimited power is what I call omnipotence.

Unlimited, even by logic? Or would you not consider logical limitations to properly be called "limits"? I need you to be more specific, because this is pivotal to how your argument will work.

so, according to this definition, it's impossible to have more than one omnipotent being. because more than one, is a limit by itself.

Assuming you mean unlimited even by logic, that would make everything possible.

actually when we say there is one God, we're not trying to count God. because only limited things can be counted. because to count something, you first have to be able to define that thing in a unit. God is not defined that way. I only say there's one God, because he's unique. nothing is like it. is not countable. is before and after everything else. everything else exist because of God. and God is the pure existence.

I'm not sure I understand any of this.

so in short, we can't have two omnipotent being. because that would create a contradiction (which is having unlimited power and not unlimited power at the same time)

But if you take omnipotence to mean unlimited even by logic, then contradictions shouldn't shouldn't be a problem, should it? Contradiction would only have a bearing on a God that was limited by logic.

this is not circular reasoning. it's logical reasoning. according to that definition, you're either omnipotent and unique, or you're not.

I already told you what I took to be circular reasoning, and you didn't respond to that.

and about God being a tri-personal being:
does the true God need those three personalities?

I don't know what "need" has to do with anything. If he's a tri-personal being, then that's what he is whether he needs to be that way or not. I don't understand what work "need" does in whatever point you're trying to make.

and what difference does those three have to make them different from each other?

They're just different persons. The Father is not the same person as the Son, the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. I don't know what differences they have to have before they could be different persons.

when God was living as Jesus, did he need to eat and sleep (because we know that he did).

Yes, Jesus needed to eat and sleep when he was a human.

when God was in one personality, does it mean that he's not in the other two?

God is three persons at the same time.

how can an omnipresent God have three different personalities?

I don't see what omnipresence has to do with whether or not God can be three distinct persons. We're getting off topic, though, aren't we? We were talking about whether or not there could be two different beings or persons who were both omnipotent.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:33:21 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 9:36:18 PM, PureX wrote:
The "trinity" is not intended to mean there are three different gods. It's referring to three distinct conceptual manifestations of one omni-God.

"God the Father" referring to that aspect of God that exists apart from us, and transcends our nature and comprehension.

"God the Son" referring to that aspect of God that in manifested in and through humanity, as God's creation, and as exemplified by "Jesus the Christ".

"God the holy spirit" referring to God's spirit or nature within our own hearts and mind, that we can use to guide us if we are willing follow it.

The trinity is not about there being three separate gods. It's about there being three different ways in which God manifests, relative to us: externally, internally, and spiritually.

That sounds more like modalism than Trinitarianism to me.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:50:16 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.

There's a very big difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism. In Sabellianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually the same person. In Trinitarianism, they are distinct persons. In Sabellianism, the one person manifests himself in different ways (or modes, thus 'modalism'), but in Trinitarianism, these are not mere difference in manifestations, but real differences in personhood. Do some more reading. It should become clear eventually. Other names for modalism include Patripassionism and oneness Pentecostalism.

Here is a debate between a Trinitarian and a modalist that you might clarify the differences:

https://www.youtube.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 1:32:10 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 12:50:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.

There's a very big difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism. In Sabellianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually the same person. In Trinitarianism, they are distinct persons. In Sabellianism, the one person manifests himself in different ways (or modes, thus 'modalism'), but in Trinitarianism, these are not mere difference in manifestations, but real differences in personhood. Do some more reading. It should become clear eventually. Other names for modalism include Patripassionism and oneness Pentecostalism.

Here is a debate between a Trinitarian and a modalist that you might clarify the differences:

https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I'm getting it. Video is pretty interesting once one gets past the hells long introductions. Which is true of a lot of debate videos.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 1:34:15 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 1:32:10 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:50:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.

There's a very big difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism. In Sabellianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually the same person. In Trinitarianism, they are distinct persons. In Sabellianism, the one person manifests himself in different ways (or modes, thus 'modalism'), but in Trinitarianism, these are not mere difference in manifestations, but real differences in personhood. Do some more reading. It should become clear eventually. Other names for modalism include Patripassionism and oneness Pentecostalism.

Here is a debate between a Trinitarian and a modalist that you might clarify the differences:

https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I'm getting it. Video is pretty interesting once one gets past the hells long introductions. Which is true of a lot of debate videos.

I usually just slide that bar over until I see the debaters speaking.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 1:53:53 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 1:34:15 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 1:32:10 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:50:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.

There's a very big difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism. In Sabellianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually the same person. In Trinitarianism, they are distinct persons. In Sabellianism, the one person manifests himself in different ways (or modes, thus 'modalism'), but in Trinitarianism, these are not mere difference in manifestations, but real differences in personhood. Do some more reading. It should become clear eventually. Other names for modalism include Patripassionism and oneness Pentecostalism.

Here is a debate between a Trinitarian and a modalist that you might clarify the differences:

https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I'm getting it. Video is pretty interesting once one gets past the hells long introductions. Which is true of a lot of debate videos.

I usually just slide that bar over until I see the debaters speaking.

Lately I just half listen during the intros while doing something else.

I'm looking forward to how the modalist is going to address the Trinitarian's point about Jesus's prayers to God. I think the Trinitarian's arguments about Jesus the Person pre-existing his incarnation were a bit thin, though. He drew an awful lot from that one Paul passage.

How long until the modalist speaks... hmm, half hour in. I've got a ways to go still. I'm honestly most interested in hearing from him. I live in a soup of Trinitarianism already.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 2:05:09 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 1:53:53 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 1:34:15 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 1:32:10 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:50:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.

There's a very big difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism. In Sabellianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually the same person. In Trinitarianism, they are distinct persons. In Sabellianism, the one person manifests himself in different ways (or modes, thus 'modalism'), but in Trinitarianism, these are not mere difference in manifestations, but real differences in personhood. Do some more reading. It should become clear eventually. Other names for modalism include Patripassionism and oneness Pentecostalism.

Here is a debate between a Trinitarian and a modalist that you might clarify the differences:

https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I'm getting it. Video is pretty interesting once one gets past the hells long introductions. Which is true of a lot of debate videos.

I usually just slide that bar over until I see the debaters speaking.

Lately I just half listen during the intros while doing something else.

I'm looking forward to how the modalist is going to address the Trinitarian's point about Jesus's prayers to God. I think the Trinitarian's arguments about Jesus the Person pre-existing his incarnation were a bit thin, though. He drew an awful lot from that one Paul passage.

How long until the modalist speaks... hmm, half hour in. I've got a ways to go still. I'm honestly most interested in hearing from him. I live in a soup of Trinitarianism already.

I mainly wanted you to get an understanding of what the differences were between modalists and trinitarians. I don't expect you to side with one or the other. You're an atheist after all!
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 2:16:04 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 2:05:09 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 1:53:53 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 1:34:15 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 1:32:10 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:50:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:43:59 AM, Casten wrote:
At 11/13/2016 12:32:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the Trinity. That analogy is better suited to modalism--the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person revealing himself in different modes.

Your avatar is lulzy.

All righty. Never heard of it, but I like learning about new theological philosophies. Did a brief google search -- Wikipedia seems to have it filed under "Sabellianism" -- but after a quick read, the difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism isn't really smacking me in the face. Three modes, three parts, what's the difference? Both seem to be saying there are three expressions of the same being. The only distinction I seem to read is that under Sabellianism, God being in three parts is a subjective human illusion.

There's a very big difference between Sabellianism and Trinitarianism. In Sabellianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually the same person. In Trinitarianism, they are distinct persons. In Sabellianism, the one person manifests himself in different ways (or modes, thus 'modalism'), but in Trinitarianism, these are not mere difference in manifestations, but real differences in personhood. Do some more reading. It should become clear eventually. Other names for modalism include Patripassionism and oneness Pentecostalism.

Here is a debate between a Trinitarian and a modalist that you might clarify the differences:

https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I'm getting it. Video is pretty interesting once one gets past the hells long introductions. Which is true of a lot of debate videos.

I usually just slide that bar over until I see the debaters speaking.

Lately I just half listen during the intros while doing something else.

I'm looking forward to how the modalist is going to address the Trinitarian's point about Jesus's prayers to God. I think the Trinitarian's arguments about Jesus the Person pre-existing his incarnation were a bit thin, though. He drew an awful lot from that one Paul passage.

How long until the modalist speaks... hmm, half hour in. I've got a ways to go still. I'm honestly most interested in hearing from him. I live in a soup of Trinitarianism already.

I mainly wanted you to get an understanding of what the differences were between modalists and trinitarians. I don't expect you to side with one or the other. You're an atheist after all!

I understand. I just still think theology debates are interesting and can't help having an opinion for which debater makes the more compelling argument. Not that I've reached any conclusions about this particular video yet.
lightseeker
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:08:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 9:34:50 PM, Casten wrote:
It's like how water can be a solid, a liquid, and a vapor. All at the same time. But it's all H20. Or something like that. That's how it was put to me, anyway. You have to admit that's a pretty cool analogy.

the analogy is good.
but only if you say all the H2o in the world can either be water, ice, or vapor. so, the part that's ice, is not vapor, and the part that's vapor not liquid water ...

so, if you're saying that, and you're using that to prove trinity, then you have to say there's a forth God which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit at the same time (in the water example that'd be H2O)

because the father isn't the son, and the Son isn't the holy spirit ... they're all manifestations of the same being, which is God. so they're no God, they're just manifestations and are hence limited. (pay attention)
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 10:20:42 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
any omnipotent God is impossible.
Fixed that for ya.
As evidenced by your OP.
Well done you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 10:39:08 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Christianity is polytheistic. There is no getting around that. For some reason Christians try to claim that Christianity is monotheistic, but their arguments always fall flat. If you look at the old testament there is even more claims of gods existing. Judaism is also polytheistic.

There is another similar thread I started.

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com...
http://www.debate.org...