Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Answers to Aziz - 2

How can you logically defend such a belief, the trinity, against pantheism? How can you for instance say that "There must also be God the Holy Spirit...There must also be God incarnate"? How do you define the word "must"?

And why would God give us reason and logic but at the same time contradict it by giving a theory about himself that few people can actually explain, and even then it is based on belief and not on human logic?

If God were not a Trinity he could not be all-powerful, since he could not act in the realms of the spirit and of the physical world. The latter is necessary also if he is to be actively merciful. That God is a Trinity follows logically from the proposition that God is all-powerful, which is also a logical proposition since a God that was not all-powerful would not be God, nor could he act mercifully in the physical world. For the latter, it is necessary for Him to become Incarnate, first in the person of Jesus Christ and now in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

"Must" means that something is necessarily so. It cannot be otherwise.

The proposition that God is a Trinity is not in principle so very difficult to understand - the Rublev icon illustrates the idea well enough. The idea of a Trinity with an active dynamic relationship between the Three can be likened to the relationship between the chemical bonds in a benzene molecule, an insight that came to the scientist Kekule in a dream. But even if it were a difficult idea, that would not make it untrue, any more than the ideas of Relativity or Quantum Theory are untrue because they are difficult to grasp.

All belief has a foundation in faith rather than in  certainty, otherwise it would not be a faith. But orthodox Christian faith is not based on UN-reason.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer