I have a couple questions about the trinity but will ask a simple one to start:

How come trinity never existed before Jesus? (say, for Abraham or Moses, they prayed to One God, not three identities of him)

Speaking of praying, it is in the bible that Jesus himself prayed to the Father. How does that work? If they are one being, why the distinction?

whoops, that was two questions, I couldn't control myself....

@smeck

No, I'm very familiar with BTP.

I understand that the proof is solid. What I'm saying is that it's irrelevant because it doesn't relate to the physical world.

I understand the point you're trying to make about something being non-intuitive. The same is true of Quantum Mechanics. The difference is this:

There is a mathematical proof of BTP.
There is experimental evidence of QM.
There is no such backing to God.

I agree that things aren't always as they seem, but without evidence to the contrary, it's better to assume they are.

well said, abgemacht +1

@rollerfiend - I wrestled with that question--"How does it work? Why the distinction?" and prayed to God to answer it. He gave me a real peace that it's true and not to worry that I can't understand it completely--but he gave me enough of a glimmer of how it works to satisfy my logical side that it's true at a level beyond my complete understanding. That may be an unsatisfying answer, but if you have an open mind--then try prayer, talking to God. What could it hurt? "God, I don't even know if you exist, but if you do, it will be mindblowing to know you, so IF you exist, please show me the truth."

I was in my late teens I think, and I don't really understand much better now, some decades later, but I'm satisfied with what I do understand. :-)

abgemacht,

"It is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to the physical world."

Irrelevant to what? would I guess be my question. You may believe that only physical things matter, but that's obviously pretty tendentious. Moreover, you probably think physics is a pretty big deal, and like it or not, one can't really do / use physics without invoking and using a ton of immaterial mathematical entities. Our ability to think intuitively about (abstract) mathematics, therefore, does relate to our ability to do science with the real world.

As to your next claim: if there were no reason to believe in God, then that would indeed be problematic to faith, of course. My point was that IF one believes that there IS reason to believe in God (which, obviously, Christians do, by and large), then the mere fact that this entails believing in something extremely unintuitive is no reason to reject the belief (which, arguendo, has some reason supporting it).

Get it? Because then it's like BTP or QM. I hope I was clear enough.

Regards.

@Mujus

Why would God reveal a glimmer of his existence to you if the whole point of your life is to be tested in faith and good behavior (well, depending on what you are)? If he revealed himself to you, you have no reason to doubt him and no reason to disobey his commands as laid out in the Bible. So what's the point?

@semck

"My point was that IF one believes that there IS reason to believe in God (which, obviously, Christians do, by and large), then the mere fact that this entails believing in something extremely unintuitive is no reason to reject the belief (which, arguendo, has some reason supporting it)."


Yes, I think I did, in fact, misunderstand you. I agree that being unintuitive is not a reason to reject something. However, lack of evidence is. BTP has evidence. God does not. This is why I was confused by what you said.

"Irrelevant to what?"

I said this when I misunderstood what you are saying; it's really not relevant now. And, I do have a great love of abstract math; I have a minor in it, in fact.

Sorry for the confusion, but those are the risks when you bring up often misunderstood mathematical proofs; you risk someone assuming you don't understand them when you really do.

OK, abge. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for my part in the mutual misunderstanding.

I of course disagree with you that there is no evidence for God, but since the question was about the Trinity, and addressed to Christians, I assumed the existence thereof and merely attempted to rebut the (frequently made) point that the Trinity was actually a reason to _reject_ the belief one had come to for other reasons.

If you want to discuss actual evidence for God, feel free to PM me.

Regards.

@semck

If you have evidence for God that doesn't fall into one of the categories below, I'd love to hear it. But, my experience has been that there isn't any such evidence.

1) The Bible
2) Lack of a current scientific theory for something.
3) Person revelation

Honestly, if you have something that doesn't fall into one of those categories I, and I'm sure many people on this site, would love to hear it.

krellin your an idiot!

Maybe God had to split himself into several parts to create Horcruxes.

The Tri-Force?

"If you want to discuss actual evidence for God, feel free to PM me."
I would be interested to hear the evidence. But I really doubt that you present anything other than the options that abe has already suggested. But if you do, please share; it's an interesting topic, even though I suspect the debate would be more about what actually constitutes "evidence".

Sorry, I was reading through this thread and found it very fascinating, so I'd like to bring up a few points that I believe personally in my faith.
Point number 1: God did not split Himself into three parts. He always existed in three parts. This can be seen in Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness." Also see John 1 for further biblical references to the eternity of the Trinity.

Point number 2: I've always heard that the Trinity is similar to an apple. This may seem rather childish, but I find that it is a good explanation. The skin of the apple is like God the Father, it protects and guards all of us. The 'meat' of the apple, is like God the Son, who provided us with the greatest sacrifice of all and the chance at eternal life. Finally, the core of the apple is like the Holy Spirit, which spreads the seed for growth in the faith. However, all are part of the same apple, they just have different tasks.

Point number 3: In response to abge and spyman, obviously at some point all religion is based on personal faith. Christian evidence is the Bible, one of the most historically accurate books of all time if one looks at simply archaeological facts, and personal witnesses. Also, I've had a lot of trouble finding strong facts supporting the Big Bang Theory so I think in some ways that is based on faith as well.

"Also, I've had a lot of trouble finding strong facts supporting the Big Bang Theory"

It's hard for me too. However, it's only hard because of our humble understanding of math and physics. I don't think it's correct to compare the religious faith with humility in the expertise of others.

abge and spyman,

First of all, I spoke sloppily, so please forgive me. I said "evidence"; I should technically have said "an argument for." Otherwise, as spyman suggests, the argument could devolve.

Second, my argument is neither 2 nor 3. It is partially based on 1,but it is certainly not just "The Bible says so." That would obviously be circular.

Third, I am happy to discuss with either or both of you, but as I indicated before, I prefer a private message discussion. Feel free to PM me. The reasons for this are quite simple. I am very busy these days. If one discusses something of such import on a forum, messages and responses of all kinds come back at a very high rate, and in order not to be overwhelmed, or to have one's argument lost in a cacophony, one must basically hang out full time on the forum and respond to every response (which vary a great deal in the quality of the arguments too, I might point out).

Whereas, in a private conversation, I can aim for a more leisurely rate, affording both of us time to mull over the others' points and respond as time allows. I think this is a much preferable format for an important and subtle topic, especially because, as I mentioned, I am extremely busy these days.

Regards.

One last point, to clarify: my argument is not 1 in just some straightforward sense of arguing for the Bible's historical reliability, the strength of the witnesses, etc. I only mention point #1 because my argument would -- unsurprisingly, I hope, since I'm arguing for Christianity -- rely on the Bible at times. -S

Haha fair enough Yonni. I will concede that point, because I am undoubtedly not well-versed enough in the physics and mathematics stand point to even argue against it. I was simply suggesting that in some ways it is accepted on faith because we would have a hard time proving it correct on our own.

Oh and sorry if my point number three in my original post was construed as simply believing that 'the Bible said so.' That was not my intent, I was simply stating that obviously the Bible is the source of Christian faith, so Christians would use that for support.

Zachattack,

Sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you. I wasn't, and didn't mean to suggest that's what you had said. Indeed, you did not.

But since abge broke down arguments into 3 types, I think he was clearly suggesting the first type he objected to were the circular Bible type arguments (which are used by some), and I just wanted to clarify that I don't think the main thrust of my argument is that. I wasn't referring to you. Sorry if there was misunderstanding.

Regards.

Oh You're fine. I didn't think you were attacking me at all. However, I reread my post after that and thought it could apply to my post, so I just wanted to clarify.

@Zach

In response to your point number one, I always thought YHVH was just talking to the other gods mentioned in the Bible when he said that. From what we've seen in other religions, gods of other peoples tend to also be humanoids.

In response to your point number three, the Bible is certainly not of uniform accuracy because it was assembled over the course of many thousands of years with many redactions and revisions. Unless you believe in the historicity of things like Noah's ark. In that case, I'm not going to argue the point.

And why does everyone miss the point that they can't argue the truth of Christianity? The first step is to have faith in the Bible. That's the whole point. Faith. Did you even read the Bible?

@ Cdre, I can see that but God also repeatedly states that He is the only God, so I have always assumed that to be a reference to the Trinity. In response to your last statement. I'm simply speaking of archaeology. The places it mentions are all there, the numbers of the censuses (censi? lol) match up, and the like. Naturally, because of faith, I believe all of the Bible to be true. However, when making an argument, people often also want other reasons, evidence, proof, etc.

@Zach

Sorry, that's not true. YHVH repeatedly mentions that there are other gods. Exodus 12:12, Exodus 18:11, Psalm 136:2, Jeremiah 25:6 are a few passages that mention the existence of other gods, sometimes directly from YHVH himself. We're just not supposed to serve them.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible mentioning real places. The Iliad mentions real places, too. And all of the locations mentioned in the Bible aren't identifiable. I'm sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.

What census? What do they match?

Again, you can't make an argument in favor of the Bible's historical inerrancy. It is replete with seemingly obvious contradictions, mistakes, inaccurate prophesies. It's up to faith to make up for the lack of reason to trust in it. That's what faith is about.

@CdreChris - The mention of other gods is in relation to anything man would put before the one true God. This includes money, food, sex, or anything else that separates man from his Creator. Epic fail but nice try at the troll.

Thank you Draug.
@CdreChris, I'm sorry but I just read through all of those passages, and in none of those did God state that the other Gods existed other than in the minds of men. In fact, in Jeremiah 25:6 he says not to worship anything we make out of our own hands, which I believe is every false God and idol.

Also, other than the Garden of Eden, which God banned humanity from after 'The Fall', and possibly Ramathaim, the birthplace of samuel, I know of very few towns or cities mentioned in the Bible whose ruins have not been discovered in the proper locations by archaeologists.

In regards to the censuses, I am discussing the census that occurs at the time of Jesus' birth, which is referenced in other historical Roman documents. Also, the numerous censuses that took place in the Old Testament have been found referenced in other historical documents.