“This doctrine also helps keep trinitarianism from drifting into tritheism, which is the belief in three different gods: the persons of God are not parts or essential differences, but are rather the way in which the one God exists personally.” [Wikipedia > Divine simplicity > In Christian thought]
If God merely had three hats, as himself (Yahweh), and as President of the Jesus Club and acting the role of Ghost in the pageant, he could still be an individual. But quite expressly, Father is not Son or Ghost, and Son is not Ghost.
So if God is the Trinity then God is three and God is composite.
Let's try an analogy: Gold is the element with atomic nr 79, so let's for simplicity say that Gold is the 79-ity. Then Gold is 79 and Gold is composite. Clearly the 79 protons are not each Gold taken individually, only collectively. And the mathematical sum of the protons is 79 - not Gold: The Gold atom is a certain collection and arrangement of the protons (and more) - not the mathematical sum of those things.
Having duly noted that Jiwe does not take issue with the OP, let's look at this.
What Jiwe is saying is that an atom of Gold (BTW, a very ... er ... significant choice for an analogy of God, worthy of a Father of the Church ... ) is NOT a mere collection of protons (and neutrons, and electrons), BUT a structured collection, and that the properties of the atom of Gold cannot be reduced to, and deduced from the properties of its constituting protons (and [118] neutrons and electrons).
Now, the above is not entirely true, because, while the properties of the atom of Gold CANNOT be reduced to the properties of its individual constituting protons (and neutrons and electrons), OTOH, they can be deduced, through the Schrödinger equation, from the constituting "ingredients".
So it should be clear that the Gold atom conceptualized as a chemical element possesses a certain unity. It can't be divided without ceasing to exist. Knock of one proton and you get Platinum instead. Gold is an element precisely because it possesses this unity. However, nothing prevents us from changing perspective and conceptualizing it simply as a collection of protons (and some more stuff). From that perspective Gold is composite. But this depends on the conceptualization.
Jiwe, in his enthusiasm for the analogy, must have forgotten to check it.
If what happens to Gold, when we "knock off one proton" is that we get Platinum, does it mean that we can also "knock off one person" from (the "trinitarian") God? Would we perhaps get ...
... or maybe ... ???
MdS
Don't you just love, James, when people reify analogies?
The structure of chemical elements will now be the point of dispute from here on out.
“This doctrine also helps keep trinitarianism from drifting into tritheism, which is the belief in three different gods: the persons of God are not parts or essential differences, but are rather the way in which the one God exists personally.” [Wikipedia > Divine simplicity > In Christian thought]
If God merely had three hats, as himself (Yahweh), and as President of the Jesus Club and acting the role of Ghost in the pageant, he could still be an individual. But quite expressly, Father is not Son or Ghost, and Son is not Ghost.
So if God is the Trinity then God is three and God is composite.
Let's try an analogy: Gold is the element with atomic nr 79, so let's for simplicity say that Gold is the 79-ity. Then Gold is 79 and Gold is composite. Clearly the 79 protons are not each Gold taken individually, only collectively. And the mathematical sum of the protons is 79 - not Gold: The Gold atom is a certain collection and arrangement of the protons (and more) - not the mathematical sum of those things.
Having duly noted that Jiwe does not take issue with the OP, let's look at this.
What Jiwe is saying is that an atom of Gold (BTW, a very ... er ... significant choice for an analogy of God, worthy of a Father of the Church ... ) is NOT a mere collection of protons (and neutrons, and electrons), BUT a structured collection, and that the properties of the atom of Gold cannot be reduced to, and deduced from the properties of its constituting protons (and [118] neutrons and electrons).
Now, the above is not entirely true, because, while the properties of the atom of Gold CANNOT be reduced to the properties of its individual constituting protons (and neutrons and electrons), OTOH, they can be deduced, through the Schrödinger equation, from the constituting "ingredients".
So it should be clear that the Gold atom conceptualized as a chemical element possesses a certain unity. It can't be divided without ceasing to exist. Knock of one proton and you get Platinum instead. Gold is an element precisely because it possesses this unity. However, nothing prevents us from changing perspective and conceptualizing it simply as a collection of protons (and some more stuff). From that perspective Gold is composite. But this depends on the conceptualization.
Jiwe, in his enthusiasm for the analogy, must have forgotten to check it.
If what happens to Gold, when we "knock off one proton" is that we get Platinum, does it mean that we can also "knock off one person" from (the "trinitarian") God? Would we perhaps get ...
... or maybe ... ???
MdS
No need to address the verbose and pretentious OP when Blu stated the problem in about five words.
I see you managed to latch onto two of the second most irrelevant aspects of the analogy: Reducibility and deducibility. The firstmost would have to be "but in the trinity there's three and in the gold atom 79...! How can they be analogous!". But thanks for pointing out its limits! That's useful too - hadn't it been completely obvious...
Oh, and your "Pluto remark" is of course also a dead giveaway that you completely missed the point. The point is of course that a plurality can have their parts or members or whatever essentially. And no, there's no problem for the analogy that the trinity has exactly those three divine persons essentially but in a gold atom all that's required is constant number of 79 (the identity of the proton is irrelevant).
This article is une of 8 articles in which is articulated Question 3. The Simplicity of God, so, it would seem, at first glance, most appropriate. Unfortunately, as can be quicly seen, neither this article nor any of the other 7 answers the ONLY question ...
“Is God's Trinity of Persons compatible with His Simplicity?” [#]
... that would have been relevant to the OP of this thread.
One may still assume that, because the Summa confronts the question of the "trinity" only later (First Part, Questions 27:43), maybe the above question [#] is confronted and aswered there, but, unfortunately for "trinitarians", that is still not the case ... in fact the critical question [#] is NOWHERE confronted by Thomas Aquinas.
[MdS] ... are inferences (logical or otherwise) drawn from analogies cogent?
This would be a whole topic in and of itself. Anyway, it depends on both the analogy and the inference made or drawn, of course. And assuming you're not speaking of formal logical rules of inference but informal logic/reasoning, then inferences can only be proposed and subsequently evaluated as weak or otherwise, which also introduces a certain amount of subjectivity into the evaluation and equation.
If I understand your rather laborious reply, and in particular that mention of "a certain amount of subjectivity", the answer is that any inference drawn from an analogy is just as good as the analogy is an adequate representation of the original referent. [§]
[§] A few of common analogies for the "trinity" are: water in its thee states (liquid, steam and ice); the sun (its light, its heat); a river (its source, the main flow, the branches of a delta, this, I believe, used also by Aquinas); even the egg (shell, yolk and white), used by the early Church of England ...
... and, of course, the three dimensions of the one (Euclidean) space: height, width, depth.
[MdS] Adelphe knows perfectly well that, like Irenaeus, I read Psalm 33:6 as an interpretation of the analogy/metaphor at Deut 33:27, which is more that can be said for any of the alleged "trinitarian" verses of the OT ...
We weren't talking about "alleged Trinitarian verses of the OT." We were talking about analogies--and two specific ones.
And, once again, that is exacly what I was doing: the "eternal arms" of God at Deut Deut 33:27 are a metaphor/analogy for His two eternal and essential structural attributes: His Word/Logos/Dabar and His Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach (Psalm 33:6) ...
... and NOTHING of the kind, even remotely comparable, can be said for God's "trinity" in the OT.
MdS
Revelation is above, not against Reason
“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
This article is une of 8 articles in which is articulated Question 3. The Simplicity of God, so, it would seem, at first glance, most appropriate. Unfortunately, as can be quicly seen, neither this article nor any of the other 7 answers the ONLY question ...
“Is God's Trinity of Persons compatible with His Simplicity?” [#]
... that would have been relevant to the OP of this thread.
One may still assume that, because the Summa confronts the question of the "trinity" only later (First Part, Questions 27:43), maybe the above question [#] is confronted and aswered there, but, unfortunately for "trinitarians", that is still not the case ... in fact the critical question [#] is NOWHERE confronted by Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas goes into much detail in explaining what it means to be "composite" and why. The Persons aren't "parts." Yes, of course "God's Trinity of Persons is compatible with His Simplicity.
Moreover, you are also demonstrating you haven't read your references to the Trinity in Q's 27-43 because Aquinas certainly has addressed the concept there as well. Your "critical" "question" is addressed throughout the Summa and your "NOWHERE contronted" is just a...statement of your own ignorance.
If I understand your rather laborious reply, and in particular that mention of "a certain amount of subjectivity", the answer is that any inference drawn from an analogy is just as good as the analogy is an adequate representation of the original referent. [§]
Speaking of "laborious replies", can you rephrase that? "...any inference drawn from an anology is just as good as the analogy is an adequate..." What?
[§] A few of common analogies for the "trinity" are: water in its thee states (liquid, steam and ice); the sun (its light, its heat); a river (its source, the main flow, the branches of a delta, this, I believe, used also by Aquinas); even the egg (shell, yolk and white), used by the early Church of England ...
... and, of course, the three dimensions of the one (Euclidean) space: height, width, depth.
And this has what to do with the gold or arms analogies?
And, once again, that is exacly what I was doing: the "eternal arms" of God at Deut Deut 33:27 are a metaphor/analogy for His two eternal and essential structural attributes: His Word/Logos/Dabar and His Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach (Psalm 33:6) ...
Okay, so you now admit (and admit) analogies. The point.
... and NOTHING of the kind, even remotely comparable, can be said for God's "trinity" in the OT.
MdS
No Trinitarian would want to--you've just denied the concept of simplicity and everything that goes along with it. You've also firmly impaled yourself on one horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
I think God is as simple as an Escher painting. :)
Ed.W: Or you could deny the Trinity and try to maintain that God is absolute (that is, Simple), but you'd have trouble explaining how God loves, let alone is love without the Trinity, therefore it is difficult to maintain DS and deny the Trinity at once.
How did God love before the story of Jesus was invented?
Oh, that's right: we have to pretend that the OT people knew what the NT people were going to say about their own work. Gotcha. I'm sure that works even now. In other words, if you can take the NT and retcon their opinions into the OT, then clearly the NT (and the OT!) should allow someone else (the author of the Quran or the Book of Mormon) space for interpretation, as we have clearly demonstrated that a later work supercedes (or "fulfills") an earlier work, despite the fact the earlier author had no knowledge whatsoever of the later version.
Knock and the door shall open. It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
I think God is as simple as an Escher painting. :)
Ed.W: Or you could deny the Trinity and try to maintain that God is absolute (that is, Simple), but you'd have trouble explaining how God loves, let alone is love without the Trinity, therefore it is difficult to maintain DS and deny the Trinity at once.
How did God love before the story of Jesus was invented?
Oh, that's right: we have to pretend that the OT people knew what the NT people were going to say about their own work. Gotcha. I'm sure that works even now. In other words, if you can take the NT and retcon their opinions into the OT, then clearly the NT (and the OT!) should allow someone else (the author of the Quran or the Book of Mormon) space for interpretation, as we have clearly demonstrated that a later work supercedes (or "fulfills") an earlier work, despite the fact the earlier author had no knowledge whatsoever of the later version.
Motto, it's not that way at all. The Son is eternal. Whether or not OT people knew much about the Son wouldn't matter. The Father loved the Son from eternity. Of course if there was just the Father, then he did and still does have no one to love.
You should go over to DJ and holler out, "How can your G-d know what love is?? He lives a solitary life somewhere off in the distant heavens...I thought love took two!"
>>>Mario:. in fact the critical question [#] is NOWHERE confronted by Thomas Aquinas.
That's how unrelated DS is to the Trinity. I've read a couple of scholarly objections to DS and neither mentions the Trinity. They are concerned that it makes God an abstract nothing, consisting of inanimate attributes. They'd rather say God is a person that loves, rather than say God is love. Or that God is a person that is infinitely benevolent rather than benevolence itself.
Anti DS people suggest that God (before he's God) has to go to a bank and get some love, some omnipotence, some benevolence, but then where did that bank come from?
IMO, the Trinity and DS are inextricably tied to one another.
Adelphe is correct to say that the Persons of the Godhead are not the "parts" addressed by DS. And as I said only we take the Trinity apart in order to understand God. But the Triune nature of God is not actually divisible, therefore the Persons are not cobbled together "parts".
“Is God's Trinity of Persons compatible with His Simplicity?” [#]
... that would have been relevant to the OP of this thread.
One may still assume that, because the Summa confronts the question of the "trinity" only later (First Part, Questions 27:43), maybe the above question [#] is confronted and aswered there, but, unfortunately for "trinitarians", that is still not the case ... in fact the critical question [#] is NOWHERE confronted by Thomas Aquinas.
Then I'm afraid you don't understand it--nor the concepts of "composite" and "simple." Aquinas goes into much detail in explaining what it means to be "composite" and why. The Persons aren't "parts." Yes, of course "God's Trinity of Persons is compatible with His Simplicity" [&] .
First, if this was the case (and it is obviously NOT), then, in front of the OP, Adelphe did NOT need to invoke, in her vague, allusive way, Thomas Aquinas' authority ("Tell St. Thomas Aquinas that ..." - Adelphe, post #2).
All Adelphe would have had to do, would have been to object immediately that ...
“God's Trinity of Persons is compatible with His Simplicity.” [... what Adelphe did NOT say then, and only says now ...] [&]
... of course with arguments that can be examined ...
Second, and once again, Thomas Aquinas NOWHERE confronts question [#], let alone explicitly affirms [&]
Moreover, you are also demonstrating you haven't read your references to the Trinity in Q's 27-43 because Aquinas certainly has addressed the concept there as well. Your "critical" "question" is addressed throughout the Summa .
If the ONLY question that would have been relevant the OP of this thread, that is [#], was indeed, as Adelphe claims, "addressed throughout the Summa", then surely Adelphe can provide a specific reference (preferably correct, this time ...)
[MdS] If I understand your rather laborious reply, and in particular that mention of "a certain amount of subjectivity", the answer is that any inference drawn from an analogy is just as good as the analogy is an adequate representation of the original referent. [§]
Speaking of "laborious replies", can you rephrase that? "...any inference drawn from an analogy is just as good as the analogy is an adequate..." What?
Obviously, and for any persons who can simply read, this: "... representation of the original referent".
In this context, the referent is obviously God, and the analogies are those brought up to illustrate God's alleged "trinity of persons" ...
[MdS] [§] A few of common analogies for the "trinity" are: water in its thee states (liquid, steam and ice); the sun (its light, its heat); a river (its source, the main flow, the branches of a delta, this, I believe, used also by Aquinas); even the egg (shell, yolk and white), used by the early Church of England ...
... and, of course, the three dimensions of the one (Euclidean) space: height, width, depth.
And this has what to do with the gold or arms analogies?
It must have escaped Adelphe that it was Jiwe, at post #8, who brought up the "gold analogy" in reply to this:
“So if God is the Trinity then God is three and God is composite.” [Blü, #4]
So, obviously, Jiwe intended the "gold analogy" as an illustration of how "a chemical element possesses a certain unity" and therefore, perhaps, of how God, although subsisting in three "persons", can "possess a certain simplicity".
I must admit, though, that I am only guessing Jiwe's intentions, as usual rather clumsily and confusedly laid out ...
... perhaps Adelphe is more addept to reading Jiwe's mind ...
As for the "arms analogy" here is, in its essence, the sequence of relevant posts (BTW, started by Adelphe ...):
[MdS, #17] “... I read Psalm 33:6 as an interpretation of the analogy/metaphor at Deut 33:27 ...”
[Adelphe, #18] “... We were talking about analogies--and two specific ones.”
[MdS, #23] “... once again, that is exactly what I was doing: the "eternal arms" of God at Deut 33:27 are a metaphor/analogy for His two eternal and essential structural attributes: His Word/Logos/Dabar and His Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach (Psalm 33:6) ...”
... so, it is unclear what can possibly still escape Adelphe ...
[MdS] And, once again, that is exactly what I was doing: the "eternal arms" of God at Deut Deut 33:27 are a metaphor/analogy for His two eternal and essential structural attributes: His Word/Logos/Dabar and His Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach (Psalm 33:6) ...
Okay, so you now admit (and admit) analogies. The point.
LOL! What an appalling straw-man. I have ALWAYS "admitted analogies", otherwise my question ...
“... are inferences (logical or otherwise) drawn from analogies cogent?” [MdS, #17]
... (that, BTW, Adelphe answered so obscurely ...) would have been out of place ...
[MdS] ... and NOTHING of the kind, even remotely comparable, can be said for God's "trinity" in the OT.
[a] No Trinitarian would want to--[b] you've just denied the concept of simplicity and everything that goes along with it. [c] You've also firmly impaled yourself on one horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.
[a] Then let me rephrase it:
The clarity of the analogy in the OT that alludes to God's Dabar and Ruwach (Psalm 33:6) as His "arms" (Deut 33:27) is not paralleled by ANYTHING allegedly referred to the "trinity" in the OT.
Ist es klar?
[b] As I do NOT subscribe to "Classical theism", I have no problem with God being (NOT "composite" BUT rather) complex.
[c] LOL!Spectacularred herring! Can Adelphe indicate and explain what would "Euthyphro dilemma" have to do with anything that I have affirmed here?
“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
I think God is as simple as an Escher painting. :)
Ed.W: Or you could deny the Trinity and try to maintain that God is absolute (that is, Simple), but you'd have trouble explaining how God loves, let alone is love without the Trinity, therefore it is difficult to maintain DS and deny the Trinity at once.
How did God love before the story of Jesus was invented?
Oh, that's right: we have to pretend that the OT people knew what the NT people were going to say about their own work. Gotcha. I'm sure that works even now. In other words, if you can take the NT and retcon their opinions into the OT, then clearly the NT (and the OT!) should allow someone else (the author of the Quran or the Book of Mormon) space for interpretation, as we have clearly demonstrated that a later work supercedes (or "fulfills") an earlier work, despite the fact the earlier author had no knowledge whatsoever of the later version.
Thats really good. I particularly like the retcon part. And yes I know where it comes from
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
God's "simplicity" according to "Classical theism" is incompatible with "orthodox trinitarianism".
My TRI-UNE God IS:
1. Existent 2. Unified 3.>>SIMPLE<<...PURE....INNOCENT....SINLESS....WITHOUT EVIL...perfectly GOOD 4. Infinite 5. Eternal 6. Unchanging and unchangeable CHARACTER 7. All Present 8. All Sovereign 9. All Knowing 10. All powerful 11. Perfectly JUST 12. Perfectly LOVING / merciful 13. Perfectly TRUE / Truthful 14. Perfectly FREE 15. Perfectly separate and pure
The Biblical definition of "SIMPLE" is not simple (easy)...Try these dictionary ideas>>>>
A : free from guile....>>>INNOCENT (simple faith of a child) B : free from vanity...>>>MODEST C : free from ostentation or display D : sheer, unmixed E : not limited or restricted : UNCONDITIONAL (PURE)
simple-simpler, simplest, = adjective 1. easy to understand, deal with, use, etc.: a simple matter; simple tools. 2. not elaborate or artificial; plain: a simple style. 3. not ornate or luxurious; unadorned: a simple gown. 4. unaffected; unassuming; modest: a simple manner. 5. not complicated: a simple design.
Job 11:4 For you have said, 'My teaching is pure, And I am innocent in your eyes.'
Job 33:9 'I am pure, without transgression ; (sin) I am innocent and there is no guilt in me.
James 3:17 ...But the wisdom from above is first pure , then ...
1 John 3:3 ... purifies himself, just as He is pure....
Hebrews 7 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, (righteous) innocent, undefiled, (sinless) separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
Numbers 23:19 “ God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of a man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
"SIMPLE" is simply an attribute and character trait of an not-so-easy-to-spiritually-discern GOD!
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
