Is being omnipresent of each person of the Trinity contradictory?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












  1. Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.

  2. Being omnipresent (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.

  3. So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being omnipresent.

  4. If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.

  5. If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.

  6. Whatever is bounded cannot be omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.









share|improve this question



















  • 3




    Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
    – RodolfoAP
    14 hours ago







  • 1




    Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    @RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 7




    "Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    @rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human” essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate” human. That analogy implies there is a “god” substance and three “things” share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
    – anonymouswho
    9 hours ago














up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












  1. Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.

  2. Being omnipresent (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.

  3. So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being omnipresent.

  4. If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.

  5. If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.

  6. Whatever is bounded cannot be omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.









share|improve this question



















  • 3




    Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
    – RodolfoAP
    14 hours ago







  • 1




    Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    @RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 7




    "Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    @rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human” essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate” human. That analogy implies there is a “god” substance and three “things” share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
    – anonymouswho
    9 hours ago












up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1





  1. Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.

  2. Being omnipresent (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.

  3. So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being omnipresent.

  4. If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.

  5. If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.

  6. Whatever is bounded cannot be omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.









share|improve this question















  1. Each person of the Trinity has all of God's attributes.

  2. Being omnipresent (not being bounded by any location, to be present everywhere) is one of God's attributes.

  3. So, each person of the Trinity has the attribute of being omnipresent.

  4. If one person is not another, then there is something else besides this person.

  5. If there is something else besides this person, then this person is bounded by this something else.

  6. Whatever is bounded cannot be omnipresent. Hence a contradiction.






atheism christianity






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 18 mins ago

























asked 15 hours ago









Josef Klimuk

1354




1354







  • 3




    Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
    – RodolfoAP
    14 hours ago







  • 1




    Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    @RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 7




    "Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    @rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human” essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate” human. That analogy implies there is a “god” substance and three “things” share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
    – anonymouswho
    9 hours ago












  • 3




    Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
    – RodolfoAP
    14 hours ago







  • 1




    Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    @RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
    – rus9384
    14 hours ago






  • 7




    "Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    @rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human” essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate” human. That analogy implies there is a “god” substance and three “things” share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
    – anonymouswho
    9 hours ago







3




3




Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
14 hours ago





Religion is not defined by logic (if it would be, then it would be identical to science), and this is just babble for a trivial logical contradiction. There's not even a question here. What do you need to know?
– RodolfoAP
14 hours ago





1




1




Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
14 hours ago




Ahem. I'm not sure the first premise is widely held to be true. It is trinity by the fact that all three are different parts of the whole (which is the same compared to self, of course), to my understanding.
– rus9384
14 hours ago




1




1




@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
14 hours ago




@RodolfoAP At first, logic doesn't define anyhting, it only solves. At second, when talking about this particular religion (and many other religions) probably you are right (in the sense scientific method is not applicable to religion). But I'm not sure religion has in its definition "not being analyzable by logic".
– rus9384
14 hours ago




7




7




"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
11 hours ago




"Whatever is bounded cannot be infinite." Is it true ? The sequence of natural numbers : 0,1,2... is bounded from below (all numbers are greater-or-equal to 0) and at the same time is infinite.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
11 hours ago




2




2




@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human” essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate” human. That analogy implies there is a “god” substance and three “things” share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago




@rafa11111 Comparing the divine essence to “human” essence is incorrect. While we are both human, I am a “separate” human. That analogy implies there is a “god” substance and three “things” share a portion of the substance. I am a human, but humanity is not me.
– anonymouswho
9 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













You cannot use words like “each” to describe the “triune god”. The word “each” implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “parts”, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute” of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity” to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.






share|improve this answer




















  • The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
    – Josef Klimuk
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
    – anonymouswho
    13 hours ago










  • Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
    – Josef Klimuk
    13 hours ago











  • Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
    – Josef Klimuk
    12 hours ago







  • 2




    From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
    – anonymouswho
    12 hours ago

















up vote
3
down vote













This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.



Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:




Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.




What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.



Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.



Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.



Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:




A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."




The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.




Reference



Wikipedia, "Straw man argument"



Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Your proof is valid.



    Here's an analogy:




    Assume the observable universe is infinite.



    Define infinite to mean contains everything.



    If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
    contain everything; it is not infinite.




    Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.



    Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.




    1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.













    • 1




      Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
      – Frank Hubeny
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
      – Words Like Jared
      1 hour ago










    • Thank you! That helps me get more information.
      – Frank Hubeny
      1 hour ago

















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    "Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."



    Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.



    Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.



      There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.






      share|improve this answer






















        Your Answer







        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "265"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: false,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56237%2fis-being-omnipresent-of-each-person-of-the-trinity-contradictory%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest






























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        4
        down vote













        You cannot use words like “each” to describe the “triune god”. The word “each” implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “parts”, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute” of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity” to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.






        share|improve this answer




















        • The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago






        • 1




          @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
          – anonymouswho
          13 hours ago










        • Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago











        • Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
          – Josef Klimuk
          12 hours ago







        • 2




          From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
          – anonymouswho
          12 hours ago














        up vote
        4
        down vote













        You cannot use words like “each” to describe the “triune god”. The word “each” implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “parts”, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute” of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity” to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.






        share|improve this answer




















        • The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago






        • 1




          @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
          – anonymouswho
          13 hours ago










        • Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago











        • Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
          – Josef Klimuk
          12 hours ago







        • 2




          From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
          – anonymouswho
          12 hours ago












        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        You cannot use words like “each” to describe the “triune god”. The word “each” implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “parts”, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute” of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity” to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.






        share|improve this answer












        You cannot use words like “each” to describe the “triune god”. The word “each” implies separate parts of a whole, but the divine substance does not have “parts”, and that which it is cannot be seperated. One “attribute” of the divine substance is that it exists as three consubstantial persons, so by it’s own definition, the only “actual infinity” to ever exist is three. This can easily be proven mathematically because 3(∞)= ∞... of course so does 4(∞), 5(∞), ... ∞. But Nicea chose three, so it’s three.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 13 hours ago









        anonymouswho

        368313




        368313











        • The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago






        • 1




          @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
          – anonymouswho
          13 hours ago










        • Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago











        • Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
          – Josef Klimuk
          12 hours ago







        • 2




          From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
          – anonymouswho
          12 hours ago
















        • The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago






        • 1




          @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
          – anonymouswho
          13 hours ago










        • Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
          – Josef Klimuk
          13 hours ago











        • Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
          – Josef Klimuk
          12 hours ago







        • 2




          From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
          – anonymouswho
          12 hours ago















        The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
        – Josef Klimuk
        13 hours ago




        The question was not about divine substance, but about persons of Trinity.
        – Josef Klimuk
        13 hours ago




        1




        1




        @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
        – anonymouswho
        13 hours ago




        @JosefKlimuk How can I describe the trinity without the divine substance? The trinity is the divine substance.
        – anonymouswho
        13 hours ago












        Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
        – Josef Klimuk
        13 hours ago





        Is substance of God omnipresent? Is every hypostase omnipresent?
        – Josef Klimuk
        13 hours ago













        Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
        – Josef Klimuk
        12 hours ago





        Math proof is not so simple. There are paradoxes with sets. Consider the following. ∞points = ∞points + ∞points Divide both sides by the unit: ∞ = ∞+∞ Divide both side by infinity: 1 = 1+1 1 = 2.
        – Josef Klimuk
        12 hours ago





        2




        2




        From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
        – anonymouswho
        12 hours ago




        From what I understand, the father “begats” the son, but whether the holy spirit “proceeds” from the father, or from both the father and the son, is called the filioque controversy- the main division between Eastern and Western Catholicism. However, the son is also “eternally-begotten” of the father, which means the father cannot begat without the son, so being begat and being begotten is infinitely equal.
        – anonymouswho
        12 hours ago










        up vote
        3
        down vote













        This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.



        Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:




        Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.




        What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.



        Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.



        Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.



        Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:




        A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."




        The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.




        Reference



        Wikipedia, "Straw man argument"



        Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"






        share|improve this answer


























          up vote
          3
          down vote













          This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.



          Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:




          Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.




          What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.



          Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.



          Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.



          Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:




          A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."




          The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.




          Reference



          Wikipedia, "Straw man argument"



          Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"






          share|improve this answer
























            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.



            Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:




            Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.




            What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.



            Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.



            Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.



            Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:




            A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."




            The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.




            Reference



            Wikipedia, "Straw man argument"



            Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"






            share|improve this answer














            This is a partial answer hopefully getting to another question that deals with the apparent multiplicity in God that the Trinity represents.



            Not all religions associated with Christianity need to assert the idea of the Trinity. For example Unitarian Universalists with roots in liberal Christianity do not appear to do so:




            Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Unitarian Universalists assert no creed, but instead are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. As such, their congregations include many atheists, agnostics, and theists within their membership. The roots of Unitarian Universalism lie in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and universalism. Unitarian Universalists state that from these traditions comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love. Congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.




            What is important in the argument is to identify more precisely who holds these beliefs.



            Once one knows who holds these beliefs, one needs to find representatives from those groups, preferably the most respected representatives, and quote their exact views on the Trinity paying attention to their arguments.



            Then one can attempt to use those arguments to try to reach a contradiction.



            Without getting those quotes and identifying whom one is opposing, one is setting up a straw man. This is how Wikipedia describes a straw man:




            A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."




            The issue of having multiplicity in unity in general should raise philosophical concerns which are worth exploring even with particular examples such as the three Persons in one God in the concept of the Christian Trinity. One simply needs to be precise about what people are claiming when they speak of these particular multiplicities.




            Reference



            Wikipedia, "Straw man argument"



            Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalism"







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 57 mins ago









            Andrew T.

            1092




            1092










            answered 12 hours ago









            Frank Hubeny

            4,2573938




            4,2573938




















                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Your proof is valid.



                Here's an analogy:




                Assume the observable universe is infinite.



                Define infinite to mean contains everything.



                If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
                contain everything; it is not infinite.




                Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.



                Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.




                1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.













                • 1




                  Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  3 hours ago






                • 1




                  @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
                  – Words Like Jared
                  1 hour ago










                • Thank you! That helps me get more information.
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  1 hour ago














                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Your proof is valid.



                Here's an analogy:




                Assume the observable universe is infinite.



                Define infinite to mean contains everything.



                If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
                contain everything; it is not infinite.




                Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.



                Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.




                1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.













                • 1




                  Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  3 hours ago






                • 1




                  @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
                  – Words Like Jared
                  1 hour ago










                • Thank you! That helps me get more information.
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  1 hour ago












                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                Your proof is valid.



                Here's an analogy:




                Assume the observable universe is infinite.



                Define infinite to mean contains everything.



                If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
                contain everything; it is not infinite.




                Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.



                Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.




                1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                Your proof is valid.



                Here's an analogy:




                Assume the observable universe is infinite.



                Define infinite to mean contains everything.



                If something is outside the observable universe, the universe does not
                contain everything; it is not infinite.




                Some Christians don't define infinite that way (God is creator, not creation1). They would reject the soundness of your proof. Specifically they would reject 6: bounded as you defined it implying not infinite. God is infinite in knowledge. God is infinite in power. But God is not everything. For example Satan is not God. For God is good. And Satan is not.



                Also some Christians view the Trinity as a mystery. They would dismiss any attempt to understand the Trinity beyond what they believe is explained in the Bible.




                1. "Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe" -- Wikipedia, "God in Christianity"







                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 47 mins ago









                Andrew T.

                1092




                1092






                New contributor




                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                answered 4 hours ago









                Words Like Jared

                1314




                1314




                New contributor




                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                New contributor





                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                Words Like Jared is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.







                • 1




                  Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  3 hours ago






                • 1




                  @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
                  – Words Like Jared
                  1 hour ago










                • Thank you! That helps me get more information.
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  1 hour ago












                • 1




                  Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  3 hours ago






                • 1




                  @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
                  – Words Like Jared
                  1 hour ago










                • Thank you! That helps me get more information.
                  – Frank Hubeny
                  1 hour ago







                1




                1




                Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
                – Frank Hubeny
                3 hours ago




                Would you have references to those Christians who reject the soundness of the proof? This would strengthen your answer. Welcome to this SE!
                – Frank Hubeny
                3 hours ago




                1




                1




                @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
                – Words Like Jared
                1 hour ago




                @FrankHubeny Thanks for the welcome! :) I added a link. How's that?
                – Words Like Jared
                1 hour ago












                Thank you! That helps me get more information.
                – Frank Hubeny
                1 hour ago




                Thank you! That helps me get more information.
                – Frank Hubeny
                1 hour ago










                up vote
                1
                down vote













                "Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."



                Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.



                Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  "Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."



                  Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.



                  Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.






                  share|improve this answer






















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    "Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."



                    Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.



                    Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.






                    share|improve this answer












                    "Has infinite extent" is not equivalent to "no part of something is not part of it."



                    Trivial example: there are points in a 3d surface that are not part of an infinite plane.



                    Better example: We define the region Z to be everything in 3d space outside of the unit sphere. There are points (in fact an infinite number of them but I digress) inside the unit sphere that are not part of region Z. Z has infinite continuous volume. I don't remember the exact notation for levels of infinity but it doesn't matter here. ∞ - ∞ is not well defined.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 6 hours ago









                    Joshua

                    30615




                    30615




















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.



                        There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.



                          There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.






                          share|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.



                            There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.






                            share|improve this answer














                            God's attributes are not contextless: God isn't infinitely everything. God is not infinitely sinful, or infinitely ignorant, or infinitely cruel. He is infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful, and even infinitely good, although we may find it difficult to see his infinite goodness when he allows and even works through bad things, though that is a limitation we have, not something that prohibits God from being truly infinitely good.



                            There is neither an infinite number of persons in the godhead, nor does each person infinitely exist to the exclusion of the other persons of the godhead. Neither of those are contexts where the infiniteness of God applies.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 2 hours ago

























                            answered 2 hours ago









                            curiousdannii

                            277311




                            277311



























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56237%2fis-being-omnipresent-of-each-person-of-the-trinity-contradictory%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest













































































                                Popular posts from this blog

                                How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                                How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?