Scoroccio

  • **
  • 6 Posts
    • View Profile
 Does the Ontological argument refute the Doctrine of the Trinity? I would love to hear a trinitarians respons to his question and see if my conclusion holds water or if I have missed something? 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 to be that 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", it's not arbitrary but one of his "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 William Lane Craig 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 or arbitrary number to be THE "sets of rational faculties" that are maximally great.

So unless I have missed something, 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).
Or:
2. Having one singular rational faculty that encompasses all maximally great making properties is the maximally great and a property of the greatest conceivable being.

If option 1 is true, then a "triune" God is better than a unitarian God, but, 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.

But if option 2 is true, God has to be a unitarian God. I think that this is the most rational and logically consistent option of the two. Having more persons that are 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?

(keep in mind that I have heard the argument that since God has always been "loving" there must be at least more persons than one to love each other, but this is a different argument and not relevant here. And I do not agree with the arbitrarily defined version of "love" that is postulated and can find it nowhere in scripture)

I would love to have a response to this.

Thank you

1

jayceeii

  • **
  • 326 Posts
    • View Profile
1. Having more "sets of rational faculties" is better than having just one (obviously having one is better than not having any at all).
Or:
2. Having one singular rational faculty that encompasses all maximally great making properties is the maximally great and a property of the greatest conceivable being.

(keep in mind that I have heard the argument that since God has always been "loving" there must be at least more persons than one to love each other, but this is a different argument and not relevant here.
Saying that God has “sets of rational faculties” is misleading. The model that I follow is that of a unitarian God (Father), with probably trillions of extensions or “arms,” each of which has semi-independent intelligence. One of these arms carries the consciousness of the “Son,” which is to say the Father’s own consciousness. Others perform the myriad real duties of God in sustaining a planet, that require massively parallel function, but are still guided by the overriding Mind. These trillions of arms are collectively called “Holy Spirit.” We’re able to move our arms independently, but don’t say they are independent. This is an analogy to begin thinking about the Holy Spirit, though It is incomprehensible.

As for these extensions loving one another, sorry, love is only between separate persons. It means that though Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit He could perceive as “Father” in the past, eventually the Lord must admit this to be only another aspect of Himself. It means no more pitiable scenes crying to the Father in the Garden. The God of this world, when embodied, is unable to perceive another God. He can only look to Himself to understand.

It is urgently important that there is one Incarnation only, and not two or more, and the reasoning behind this is partly as you state. If there were two then neither is unique, when the purpose of the Incarnation is for God’s own Personality to appear. The Hindus sadly teach that all are incarnations, i.e. God has become everyone, and since this is an error I never use the word reincarnation. Until one of these “incarnations” exhibits divine properties instead of the usual human ones (greedy, selfish, vain, etc.), the story is existentially ludicrous. There’s little doubt Jesus would crave a companion of His stature, but again sadly, this creation cannot answer the demand. The Lord always stands Alone.

There’s one additional point here, as you lament it would be better to have one rational faculty than to have none at all. A rational faculty is not enough. What matters more is worldview and perception. Men lack an inner vision. Because of this, none sees the soul, and without experience of spirit the rational faculties, only adapted to externals, are unable to gauge when they’ve heard the real story, or a falsehood. This is the source of the divisions between and within religions. No one knows the truths of spirit, despite today’s scientific success. When no one knows, men go in a thousand different directions.

2

Scoroccio

  • **
  • 6 Posts
    • View Profile
1. Having more "sets of rational faculties" is better than having just one (obviously having one is better than not having any at all).
Or:
2. Having one singular rational faculty that encompasses all maximally great making properties is the maximally great and a property of the greatest conceivable being.

(keep in mind that I have heard the argument that since God has always been "loving" there must be at least more persons than one to love each other, but this is a different argument and not relevant here.
Saying that God has “sets of rational faculties” is misleading. The model that I follow is that of a unitarian God (Father), with probably trillions of extensions or “arms,” each of which has semi-independent intelligence. One of these arms carries the consciousness of the “Son,” which is to say the Father’s own consciousness. Others perform the myriad real duties of God in sustaining a planet, that require massively parallel function, but are still guided by the overriding Mind. These trillions of arms are collectively called “Holy Spirit.” We’re able to move our arms independently, but don’t say they are independent. This is an analogy to begin thinking about the Holy Spirit, though It is incomprehensible.

As for these extensions loving one another, sorry, love is only between separate persons. It means that though Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit He could perceive as “Father” in the past, eventually the Lord must admit this to be only another aspect of Himself. It means no more pitiable scenes crying to the Father in the Garden. The God of this world, when embodied, is unable to perceive another God. He can only look to Himself to understand.

It is urgently important that there is one Incarnation only, and not two or more, and the reasoning behind this is partly as you state. If there were two then neither is unique, when the purpose of the Incarnation is for God’s own Personality to appear. The Hindus sadly teach that all are incarnations, i.e. God has become everyone, and since this is an error I never use the word reincarnation. Until one of these “incarnations” exhibits divine properties instead of the usual human ones (greedy, selfish, vain, etc.), the story is existentially ludicrous. There’s little doubt Jesus would crave a companion of His stature, but again sadly, this creation cannot answer the demand. The Lord always stands Alone.

There’s one additional point here, as you lament it would be better to have one rational faculty than to have none at all. A rational faculty is not enough. What matters more is worldview and perception. Men lack an inner vision. Because of this, none sees the soul, and without experience of spirit the rational faculties, only adapted to externals, are unable to gauge when they’ve heard the real story, or a falsehood. This is the source of the divisions between and within religions. No one knows the truths of spirit, despite today’s scientific success. When no one knows, men go in a thousand different directions.

Thanks for your answer but I don't think anyone would call your view "trinitarian". It sounds more like Hindu/Bhuddist/one self/pantheistic view.

Although it might be an interesting concept, I don't see it as a response to my question about regular trinitarian models.

3

jayceeii

  • **
  • 326 Posts
    • View Profile
1. Having more "sets of rational faculties" is better than having just one (obviously having one is better than not having any at all).
Or:
2. Having one singular rational faculty that encompasses all maximally great making properties is the maximally great and a property of the greatest conceivable being.

(keep in mind that I have heard the argument that since God has always been "loving" there must be at least more persons than one to love each other, but this is a different argument and not relevant here.
Saying that God has “sets of rational faculties” is misleading. The model that I follow is that of a unitarian God (Father), with probably trillions of extensions or “arms,” each of which has semi-independent intelligence. One of these arms carries the consciousness of the “Son,” which is to say the Father’s own consciousness. Others perform the myriad real duties of God in sustaining a planet, that require massively parallel function, but are still guided by the overriding Mind. These trillions of arms are collectively called “Holy Spirit.” We’re able to move our arms independently, but don’t say they are independent. This is an analogy to begin thinking about the Holy Spirit, though It is incomprehensible.

As for these extensions loving one another, sorry, love is only between separate persons. It means that though Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit He could perceive as “Father” in the past, eventually the Lord must admit this to be only another aspect of Himself. It means no more pitiable scenes crying to the Father in the Garden. The God of this world, when embodied, is unable to perceive another God. He can only look to Himself to understand.

It is urgently important that there is one Incarnation only, and not two or more, and the reasoning behind this is partly as you state. If there were two then neither is unique, when the purpose of the Incarnation is for God’s own Personality to appear. The Hindus sadly teach that all are incarnations, i.e. God has become everyone, and since this is an error I never use the word reincarnation. Until one of these “incarnations” exhibits divine properties instead of the usual human ones (greedy, selfish, vain, etc.), the story is existentially ludicrous. There’s little doubt Jesus would crave a companion of His stature, but again sadly, this creation cannot answer the demand. The Lord always stands Alone.

There’s one additional point here, as you lament it would be better to have one rational faculty than to have none at all. A rational faculty is not enough. What matters more is worldview and perception. Men lack an inner vision. Because of this, none sees the soul, and without experience of spirit the rational faculties, only adapted to externals, are unable to gauge when they’ve heard the real story, or a falsehood. This is the source of the divisions between and within religions. No one knows the truths of spirit, despite today’s scientific success. When no one knows, men go in a thousand different directions.

Thanks for your answer but I don't think anyone would call your view "trinitarian". It sounds more like Hindu/Bhuddist/one self/pantheistic view.

Although it might be an interesting concept, I don't see it as a response to my question about regular trinitarian models.
For the first time in history I’ve described the triune God in realistic terms, but your mind, and the minds of the others you cite as standing beside you (“anyone”), are unable to process the information, falling back into categories without seeing what is new. I don’t expect people to be able to process this information, if I point out they cannot process it. The “all is one” view from Hinduism states that God has become everything, but I insist God created the souls to be separate from Himself and all others, for eternity.