Has God begat a son?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by muhammad_isa, Mar 27, 2022.

  1. RJM

    RJM God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    8,865
    Likes Received:
    2,080
    So 'logical' is obviously not the correct term I was looking for, in relation to the two-slit experiment or Schrodinger's cat.

    Non-intuitive, perhaps?
    Would the same categorisation apply to the principle of the Trinity?
     
    Ella S. likes this.
  2. Tone Bristow-Stagg

    Tone Bristow-Stagg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2021
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    210
    God gave the Holy Spirit.

    The Holy Spirit is the cause of all the Names and Attributes given of the unknowable, unaccessible God, in both the spiritual and material worlds.


    The Son and Father are but stations of the Annointed Ones, the Christ's, who are known as all the Messengers of God, known by the Names and Stations God has bestowed upon them, they one and all were born into this world via the Holy Spirit. Humanity is conceived of the human spirit and we must be born again with the Spirit of Faith to embrace the Holy Spirit.

    The Oneness of God has now been forever established by the Message given by the Bab (Gate) and Baha'u'llah (Glory of God) and shows clearly how we are all one people on one planet, with One Shepard, God.

    Always happy to discuss. Regards Tony
     
  3. Ella S.

    Ella S. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    534
    Schrodinger's Cat, as popularly understood, actually is illogical because it violates the Law of Noncontradiction. A lot of lay folk interpret the analogy to mean that a particle is in two contradictory states at once but the thought experiment was actually meant to point out that we couldn't know for sure what state a particle is in before we measure it. As such, the real meaning of Schrodinger's Cat is neither illogical nor counter-intuitive.

    I am uncomfortable talking in-depth about The Double-Slit Experiment because I'm not a quantum physicist. From what I've heard from other quantum physicists, it seems that the issue is that the act of measuring particles contaminates the measurement due to the fact that the tools we use to measure them cause them to become entangled. If this is true, then the results of the Double-Slit Experiment aren't really that odd but, again, I'm not a quantum physicist.

    In a sense, theoretical physics (which includes some fields of quantum physics) can be considered illogical because it's primarily a form of metaphysics. It contains whole speculative models and essentially acts as a way to brainstorm ideas that might one day lead to falsifiable hypotheses. These speculations are not based wholly in logical conclusions and, in that sense, you could say that a good portion of theoretical quantum physics is illogical. This was a part of Karl Popper's argument against Logical Positivism since hypotheses play an important role in science despite the fact that they are unverified, which is why science uses the criteria of falsifiability instead of logical verifiability.

    As for the Trinity, it depends on the model. None of the Trinitarian heresies violate any logical axioms and brief descriptions of those are here:
    https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian Heresies.html

    However, Trinitarianism itself does violate the Law of Identity and would be considered logically impossible since Jesus and God the Father are both wholly identical with God and yet completely separate from each other under Trinitarianism. Most people who believe in the Trinity end up thinking about it in heretical terms without meaning to just because they are more intuitive.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2022
    Thomas likes this.
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,305
    Likes Received:
    2,587
    And yet it has been explained how it does not, complex arguments that treat the proposition 'God' as unique.
     
    Ella S. likes this.
  5. Ella S.

    Ella S. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    534
    I have never heard Trinitarianism explained in a way that was logically possible and I've spoken to a lot of priests and theologians of various denominations on the topic. I'd be very interested if you could provide me such an explanation where they all failed.

    If it rests on the proposition that "God" is unique, though, then that's actually still illogical and a form of special pleading. (ETA: Although I don't expect that to be the entirety of your explanation, of course, but it has been for many lay people that I've spoken to.)

    (ETA2: Besides, why does it matter if Trinitarianism is logically impossible? Plenty of believers have conceded that it is but still have faith that God can do the impossible. It's not logical, but they don't care.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2022
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,305
    Likes Received:
    2,587
    OK. Sadly, I'm not competent enough to bite that bullet, much as I would like to. Suffice to say there are objections on the grounds of logic, and those exceptions have their responses ... but yes, it's a tough one, and it doesn't fall within the 'normal' sphere of logical operation, being by its very nature utterly transcendent ... which I know is a 'special pleading', but then it is special.

    Aquinas' First Proof – the First Cause or Unmoved Mover – is not a proof of the Christian God, but an argument in principle, and I have seen the First Cause dismissed as 'special pleading', and defended on the basis that it has to be disproved, and special pleading itself is insufficient, it has to be shown how or why. There's a discussion here.

    Well quite. Again, to paraphrase Aquinas, 'logic' proceeds according to its principles, so we have to determine whether 'special pleading' is a cop-out, or whether actually that 'special case' is nevertheless logically coherent.

    It becomes a circular argument.

    As a Trinitarian Christian, I would say the world is 'Trinity-shaped', that the various triunes in human speculation are intuitions that allude to it. The Platonic triune stasis-kinesis-genesis :: rest-movement-becoming was right, but the wrong way round, Plato's notion of the fall as the eternal soul, in the contemplation of God, turns away and falls into the material world (created to arrest the soul's decline) was 'baptised' by Maximus the Confessor to read genesis-kinesis-stasis, becoming-movement-rest (in God).

    But yes, logically arguing the Trinity is a whole different ballgame!
     
    Ella S. likes this.
  7. Ella S.

    Ella S. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    534
    I have also heard people dismiss the Cosmological Argument as a form of special pleading but I don't think it is in its classical form. It does tend to be botched by some amateur apologists, though, in ways that do become forms of special pleading.

    My issue with the Cosmological Argument is a lot simpler. I don't think there's enough evidence for its premises. I don't think, for example, that we can say that there was a single first mover, for instance.

    While I do think a first mover is more likely than time extending infinitely into the past given the Big Bang (although some physicists have speculated that time in our universe is a sort of infinite loop with a Big Crunch at the end, I don't think there's enough evidence for this) it's hard for me to see why there would be only one mover or why this mover is necessarily God.

    It could be the case, for instance, that out of empty spacetime probability waves generated virtual particles en masse shortly after T=0 which caused the Big Bang. I'm not sure why you would call those waves a singular force or why you would identify that force with God.

    I did read this part. I haven't much to respond to but I found it informative and thought-provoking. I do think that the forms of the Trinity that are most comprehensible to me tend to have a basis in Platonism. Origen is a great source for Neoplatonic thought overlapping with Christian theology and he'd probably be my first pick when talking about it in this context, too.

    The concept of stasis-kinesis-genesis plays a huge role in Agrippa's Occult Philosophy, although I don't think he uses those terms. It always seemed more similar to Modalism than Trinitarianism to me, though.

    Outside of that, I guess my issue is more that there isn't a computational description of Trinitarianism. It can make sense in paraconsistent logic and, indeed, I have read academic papers on that subject published in scholarly journals. I just think it's a misapplication of paraconsistent logic, since it was invented to deal with uncertainty rather than mystery, and I think using paraconsistent logic in an epistemic sense can bring with it a lot of issues. I'm more of a supporter of Bayesian epistemology, personally, for a few technical reasons.
     
    Thomas likes this.
  8. dattaswami2

    dattaswami2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sunday
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    8
    Devotees treat God as Father and God is the Divine Father and not the biological father. If God is the biological father, all the male souls and female souls that are created must be brothers and sisters, in which case marriages should not take place. If God had a wife and if His wife carried on each soul as the child in her womb and then delivered the child, in such case God can be the biological father.

    God has created the soul like the biological father and the nature or creation or Prakruti has created the body for the soul by the power of God only. Inert Prakruti can’t be the non-inert biological mother so that we can give equal credit as given to the mother. The process of birth of the child from biological parents is quite different from the birth of a soul with body from God and nature. There are several occasions when God created the soul with body by His will as in the case of the birth of God Viirabhadra from the hair-lock of the head of God Shiva. Here, God created nature while the biological father does not create the biological mother.

    Hence, when the Gita says that God is the father like seed giving birth to a tree (Ahaṃ bīja pradaḥ pitā), it means that God is the creator of the seed, which does not mean that He is not the creator of earth that forms the body of the plant. Here, the simile is not a complete simile because God created the earth as well just as He created the seed. Simile shall be taken as a partial comparison only. God is said to be the intellectual as well as the material cause of the creation (Abhinna nimittopādāna kāraṇaṃ Brahma). Hence, God is the Divine Father, who is the total cause for the soul and its body.

    People mock at God Brahma, who married Goddess Sarasvati even though she is His daughter. Is she His biological daughter? If so, where is her biological mother. If you say that since God Brahma created Sarasvati, she must be His biological daughter only. Then, God Brahma created all the human beings as He created Sarasvati. In such a case, all the human beings must be sons and daughters of God Brahma alone and should not perform marriages within themselves. When you criticize others, you must examine yourself. In the same way, God created Adam and Eve, who became husband and wife.
     

Share This Page