Author Topic: The Doctrine of the Trinity refuted by the Ontological argument?  (Read 197 times)

Scoroccio

  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
I would love for someone to respond to this and see if my conclusion holds water or if I have missed something or made some categorical error. Anyway here goes my reasoning:

As I understand it, the Ontological argument is based on the premise that "God" is by definition the greatest conceivable being, having such "great making" properties like that of being a "necessarily existent being", since it's better than a "contingently existent being".

Now, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God's is also "triune", that is, "tri-personal". This makes being triune an essential property of "God" and also one of these great making properties. My question then is this: How can being "tri-personal" (or having "three sets of rational faculties, each sufficient for personhood" as WLC puts it) be a "great making" property? Is it maximally great to be "tri-personal"? Why three? Why not four? Or a million? Three seems like an odd an arbitrary number to be THE "sets of rational faculties" that are maximally great.

As I see it there are therefore only two viable options here:
Either:
1. Having more "sets of rational faculties" is better than having just one (obviously having one is better than not having any at all). If this is the case then a "triune" God is better than a unitarian God, but then again, a "quadrune(?)" God (having four sets of rational faculties) would better than being "triune". But if this is true, then it would mean that the very greatest conceivable being would have, not three, or four, or five, but an infinite set of rational faculties! Because having more is better, and infinity is the greatest conceivable sets of rational faculties that a being can have. This is still logically consistent since it is very easy to conceive of such a being.

Or we have option:
2. Having a singular rational faculty that encompasses all maximally great making properties is the greatest conceivable being. I feel that this is the most rational and logically consistent option. Having more persons that would be maximally great would inevitably "dilute" the sense of "maximal greatness" because all the properties would be shared by other persons making none unique, and it is better to be unique than generic. So having one singular unique person that encompasses all of it and is alone the greatest is easy to grasp and logically consistent.

So is it not so then, that the Ontological argument necessitates either a Unitarian
God, or an "Infinitarian" God, but is completely inconsistent with the concept of a "triune" God?

(I know about the argument that since God has always been "loving" there must be at least more persons than one to love each other, but I do not agree with this arbitrarily defined version of "love" and can find it nowhere in scripture and at most because of occhams razor it would bring us to a binitarian God. And for the matter, since there was no "time" before creation, there was no "time" when God was not loving, but he has been loving at all times, he chose a specific "point" to show that love by creating other intelligent beings)

I would love to have a response to this.

Thank you

Aaron Massey

  • Posts: 4987
  • absit iniuria verbis
    • View Profile
Re: The Doctrine of the Trinity refuted by the Ontological argument?
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2017, 08:12:44 AM »
You would have to argue why 4 persons in a God head all of the same essence is better than 3 for your argument to work. If not 3, then why 4?

The argument would be that 3 persons is the best, as that is where the most proof lies for a God existing,that being the christina one of the bible once you grasp the trinitarian theology....  This would be after you accept the existence of God from the ontological argument that is, not before. 

It is rather the case of discounting the christian Triune God as being the same one identified in the ontological argument.... or accepting it.  It is kind of a side issue wondering what "maximul" looks like/is (epistemological) as opposed to being possible.... all your concepts are possible after all.. 1-2...zillion etc.. It dosnt really change the Ontological argument... and it would still stand.. it would only effect which God you choose.

Still... if Trinitarians wanted to tackle the problem, they might argue that "GOD" is not made up of 3 persons.   GOD is 3 persons, co-existent, un-created in one essence......  your claim is that God is made up of 3 persons....  They would argue God is 3 persons as there is no head in the triune God all are cosubstantial and uncreated equally....ie: The father is not maximal amongst the triune God...otherwise you would need to argue which is maximul.. Father/Son/HS.. and down the rabit hole of that... that is not an option.

so in my view...
1: the amount of persons a God is (could be a pantheist view even that we are all God as persons) does not effect the Ontological argument. (it does effect the God you choose once you accept the argument)
2: If you want to argue against the trinity you will go around in circles, it is a paradox.
Proverbs 8:30 "then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man."

Scoroccio

  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: The Doctrine of the Trinity refuted by the Ontological argument?
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2017, 03:31:14 AM »
Thanks for answering Aaron Massey!

Sorry I did not fully understand your response, you said:

"You would have to argue why 4 persons in a God head all of the same essence is better than 3 for your argument to work. If not 3, then why 4?"

But I'm not saying 4 but an infinte, because there are only two option isn't there? Either lower is maximally great OR more is greater. If more is greater than 2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2 and 4 better than 3 and so on until infinity. To avoid these options one would have to argue that the number of sets of rational faculties is irrelevant to great making properties and somehow excluded. But I think that would make it arbitrary and I don't think any of Gods attributes is arbitrary? Or that it just "is".

Then you said:
"The argument would be that 3 persons is the best, as that is where the most proof lies for a God existing,that being the christina one of the bible once you grasp the trinitarian theology... This would be after you accept the existence of God from the ontological argument that is, not before."
" what proof specifically? And I understand that the Ontological argument is mainly to argue for the existence of God, but IF it is true then it limits what kind of God that may be. It could bot be the kind of God described in norse mythology for example, and I argue now that it could not be a triune God either. Of course some could deny the whole argument but I find it logical. There is plenty of evidence for the Christian God, but not that God is triune.
Also I don't think you can just "cut off" the Ontological argument once you established the existence of God but need to let it be drawn out to it's full conclusion and your view of God, if you take it seriously.

Finally I agree, the Ontological argument does either get you to a pantheist infinitarian God or it gets us to a unitarian God but not a trinitarian. But I think unitarian is the more logical one.

Thanks again