Mathematical Disproof of the Trinity

[DeistPaladin]

 

[Marcus]

It's not geometry, it's logic!

 

[ExeFBM]

I would expect a reply, along the lines of: B,C and D are actually sub sets of A. Like the shell, white, and yolk are all part of an egg, but seperate and distinct.

 

[DeistPaladin]

It's not geometry, it's logic!

Sorry, I learned about the transitive proof (and other mathematical proofs) in Geometry class in high school. I'll see if I can upload a corrected video.

I would expect a reply, along the lines of: B,C and D are actually sub sets of A. Like the shell, white, and yolk are all part of an egg, but seperate and distinct.

This would be a good reply if Christianity were polytheistic.

 

[Marcus]

Sorry, I learned about the transitive proof (and other mathematical proofs) in Geometry class in high school. I'll see if I can upload a corrected video.

It is one of Euclid's axioms, but transitivity, especially in proof, belongs more in logic.

I would expect a reply, along the lines of: B,C and D are actually sub sets of A. Like the shell, white, and yolk are all part of an egg, but seperate and distinct.

This would be a good reply if Christianity were polytheistic.

True. They don't claim that Jesus is part of God, they claim that he is God. Unless they're one of the nonconsubstantialist heretics that were thrown out at Nicea, that is.

 

[borrofburi]

Logic does not apply to the infinite! It's not supposed to make sense to our human minds!

 

[Zylstra]

The Christian Response:


......

























Why do you hate god and want to go to hell?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

All I have to say is that it is a very poor argument. Altough the logic you have presented is true in a sense, but it does not represent the point of view that christians do, so in my opinion you have commited a misrepresentation mistake that christians use and you must allow yourself to resort to same logical falacies if you want to be taken seriouse.
That is my opinion.

 

[DeistPaladin]

All I have to say is that it is a very poor argument. Altough the logic you have presented is true in a sense, but it does not represent the point of view that christians do, so in my opinion you have commited a misrepresentation mistake that christians use and you must allow yourself to resort to same logical falacies if you want to be taken seriouse.
That is my opinion.

Fair enough. Maybe I just don't understand the Trinity. So many have tried to explain it to me and it comes off as little more convincing than the graph I show in the video. Jesus and Yahweh (son and father) are part of the same god and yet different beings at the same time.

If I've got it wrong, would someone who has a better understanding please explain it to me. I'm not ashamed to admit it if I make any errors.

 

[Aught3]

Well you can take heart because it is at least as good as the arguments christians make for their god.

My, that was a bit insulting wasn't it? Sorry Paladin :lol:

 

[michalchik]

Honestly, this will probably irritate some Christians but the refutation of gibberish is gibberish. The nature of the father, son and holy ghost is so ill defined that you can't reasonably apply any set of rules to them including transitivity. You could use the trinity to disprove TAG (transcendental proof for god) since the trinity violates the logical principle of identity both TAG and the trinity can not be right. Overall, the use of formal logical in the debate around god seems to miss the point that we are talking about reality not abstraction.

 

[DeistPaladin]

Honestly, this will probably irritate some Christians but the refutation of gibberish is gibberish. The nature of the father, son and holy ghost is so ill defined that you can't reasonably apply any set of rules to them including transitivity. You could use the trinity to disprove TAG (transcendental proof for god) since the trinity violates the logical principle of identity both TAG and the trinity can not be right. Overall, the use of formal logical in the debate around god seems to miss the point that we are talking about reality not abstraction.

Can you explain TAG to me? I just watched two Christian videos attempting to explain it and found them to be incomprehensable. Thanks.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The trinity is false fair and square by the bible standards. It clearly says in the bible that jesus is a completly distinct character from God, the concept of jesus=God came much later with the early church when people thaught that Jesus was simply so awsome that he must be God (in disguise).

Now the problem with your argument is that you asume that the son can not be the father on any circumstance and that the idea of father as God is the same as the idea of father for everything else. Any christian whit a bit of sense that wishes to pedle the trinity can pick up on this and make you look bad (specially if you say geometry), that is why you shouldn't resort to poor arguments.

You could however demand anyone to find a quote from the bible where Jesus or God says that they are both the same person, that will be a much much harder thing to come up.

 

[DeistPaladin]

The trinity is false fair and square by the bible standards. It clearly says in the bible that jesus is a completly distinct character from God, the concept of jesus=God came much later with the early church when people thaught that Jesus was simply so awsome that he must be God (in disguise).

Now the problem with your argument is that you asume that the son can not be the father on any circumstance and that the idea of father as God is the same as the idea of father for everything else. Any christian whit a bit of sense that wishes to pedle the trinity can pick up on this and make you look bad (specially if you say geometry), that is why you shouldn't resort to poor arguments.

You could however demand anyone to find a quote from the bible where Jesus or God says that they are both the same person, that will be a much much harder thing to come up.

There are passages in the Bible, especially in the Gospel of John or in some epistles, that suggest Jesus was God incarnate. Examples: John 10:30, John 10:38, 1stTim 3:16. There's even a passage in the synoptics, Matthew 1:23 (though this is a misquote of Isaiah).

I don't actually have a problem with the idea that the father and son could be the same being. If Jesus was Yahweh having assumed a human form, this is the classic "avatar" concept. In such a case, Jesus would just be the name for Yahweh's human form.

Even the idea of Jesus being his own father could be understood. If Yahweh impregnated Mary and then, instead of letting a "soul" enter the newborn, sent himself in to take possession of the infant, it's not hard to comprehend (though with a lot of magical thinking).

My problem, and perhaps my video wasn't clear, is that Christians want it both ways at once and this is impossible (hence the application of the transitive proof that I learned in geometry class).