Does the Ontological argument refute the Doctrine of the Trinity?

[Scoroccio]

I would love to hear a trinitarians respons to this question and see if my conclusion holds water or if I have missed something? Made some categorical error? Anyway here goes my reasoning:

As I understand it, the Ontological argument is based on the premise that "God" is by definition the greatest conceivable being, having such "great making" properties like that of being a "necessarily existent being", since it's better to be that than a "contingently existent being".

Now, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God's is also "triune", that is, "tri-personal". This makes being "triune" an essential property of "God" and one of these "great making" properties.

My question then is this: How can being "tri-personal" (or having "three sets of rational faculties, each sufficient for personhood" as William Lane Craig puts it) be a "great making" property? Is it maximally great to be "tri-personal"? Why three? Why not four? Or a million? Three seems like an odd or arbitrary number to be THE "sets of rational faculties" that are maximally great.

So if I haven't missed something, there are therefore only two viable options here, either:

1. Having more "sets of rational faculties" is better than having just one (obviously having one is better than not having any at all).

If this is the case then a "triune" God is better than a unitarian God, but then again, a "quadrune(?)" God (having four sets of rational faculties) would better than being "triune". But if this is true, then it would mean that the very greatest conceivable being would have, not three, or four, or five, but an infinite set of rational faculties! Because having more is better, and infinity is the greatest conceivable sets of rational faculties that a being can have. This is still logically consistent since it is very easy to conceive of such a being.

Or we have the other option:
2. Having one singular rational faculty that encompasses all maximally great making properties is the maximally great and a property of the greatest conceivable being.

I feel that this is the most rational and logically consistent option. Having more persons that would be maximally great would inevitably "dilute" the sense of "maximal greatness" because all the properties would be shared by other persons making none unique, and it is better to be unique than generic. So having one singular unique person that encompasses all of it and is alone the greatest is easy to grasp and logically consistent.

So is it not so then, that the Ontological argument necessitates either a Unitarian
God, or an "Infinitarian" God, but is completely inconsistent with the concept of a "triune" God?

(I know about the argument that since God has always been "loving" there must be at least more persons than one to love each other, but I do not agree with this arbitrarily defined version of "love" and can find it nowhere in scripture and at most because of occhams razor it would bring us to a binitarian God. And for the matter, since there was no "time" before creation, there was no "time" when God was not loving, but he has been loving at all times, he chose a specific "point" to show that love by creating other intelligent beings)

I would love to have a response to this.

Thank you

 

[Truster]

I read your post and thought of this:


"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with Elohim....."

 

[jamie]

This forum is pro-trinitarian, your arguments are doomed to failure.

Try a different topic.

 

[Scoroccio]

Thanks but I'm interested in engaging trinitarians. The only way it can be doomed is if someone can successfully refute it. If they can't or don't respond I will take it as if it is a defeater of the tinity.

 

[musterion]

PneumaPsycoSucka returns!

 

[Scoroccio]

I don't understand?

 

[Scoroccio]

PneumaPsycoSucka returns!

What do you mean?

 

[Tambora]

Thanks but I'm interested in engaging trinitarians. The only way it can be doomed is if someone can successfully refute it. If they can't or don't respond I will take it as if it is a defeater of the tinity.

ROFL!

It is not an Ontological argument that determines the truth that GOD is triune.
Not to mention that stating you have won an argument because no one responds to your internet post is just plain stupidity.

Falsehood is falsehood, and truth is truth, whether a hundred respond to your question or none respond to your question.

 

[jamie]

Thanks but I'm interested in engaging trinitarians. The only way it can be doomed is if someone can successfully refute it. If they can't or don't respond I will take it as if it is a defeater of the tinity.

You have already lost and just don't know it yet. :bang:

 

[Scoroccio]

I read your post and thought of this:


"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with Elohim....."

 

[Scoroccio]

I read your post and thought of this:


"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with Elohim....."

Wow, soit's ok to use "folishness" in order to establish the doctrine of the trinity (based on platonic greek philosophy) but not to refute it? Nixe logic there...

 

[Scoroccio]

ROFL!

It is not an Ontological argument that determines the truth that GOD is triune.
Not to mention that stating you have won an argument because no one responds to your internet post is just plain stupidity.

Falsehood is falsehood, and truth is truth, whether a hundred respond to your question or none respond to your question.

You know you have lost when you instead of interacting with the argument resort to ad hominem attacks, sad... I thought this was a forum for real discussion? Or is it that it is ok to use philosophy (platonic and greek philosophy) to establish the trinity but not to refute it? If it is so stupid be my guest and point out a flaw in my argument.

 

[Scoroccio]

You have already lost and just don't know it yet. :bang:

Please show me how my argument is invalid then? If it so easy? Or maybe it's just that you are not so well acquainted with philosophical thinking and don't understand it? You do know that the doctrine of the Trinity is purely based on greek platonic philosophy and simply could not be formulated without it.

 

[Tambora]

You know you have lost when you instead of interacting with the argument resort to ad hominem attacks,

No, moron.
Ad hominem does not determine if a statement is true or false.

I thought this was a forum for real discussion?

Try presenting a valid one.

Or is it that it is ok to use philosophy (platonic and greek philosophy) to establish the trinity

Let me see if I can make this plain enough for you to understand ....... It does not establish the Trinity.

but not to refute it? If it is so stupid be my guest and point out a flaw in my argument.

Your argument???
You've made no argument.
Asking folks to validate or refute some phantom argument that you happen to label "Ontological argument" is NOT presenting an argument. Unless you are naive enough to believe that all church groups are universally united in some orthodox Ontological argument creed somewhere in existence.

It might help if you would at least post a link as to whose version of "Ontological argument" you are implying in your OP.

 

[Scoroccio]

No, moron.
Ad hominem does not determine if a statement is true or false.


Try presenting a valid one.


Let me see if I can make this plain enough for you to understand ....... It does not establish the Trinity.


Your argument???
You've made no argument.
Asking folks to validate or refute some phantom argument that you happen to label "Ontological argument" is NOT presenting an argument. Unless you are naive enough to believe that all church groups are universally united in some orthodox Ontological argument creed somewhere in existence.

It might help if you would at least post a link as to whose version of "Ontological argument" you are implying in your OP.

Ok, very Christ-like personality you have there Tambora... calling people names and resorting the hateful speech, your Lord must be proud. Don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible to be hateful and aggresive though, maybe you could point that verse put?

Sorry, I will try to make it easier for you to understand. Ad hominem attacks shows that someone has nothing to offer as a refutation and in desperation resort to personal attacks. Otherwise they would simply show where the other is wrong, or why.

Oh so the Trinity is not based on and established by platonic philosophy? I think you have to pick up a book or two on early church fathers and how they came up with it. If it is not, try explaining the Trinity without using terms like: "of one essence", "eternal begetting", "nature", "tri-personal", "personhood", "omniscient", "omnipotent", "essential properties", "co-eternal", "duality", "two natures"... etc. All greek philosophical terms neccesary to explain and define it.

If you don't know what it is or simply don't understand the Ontological argument that is fine. Just google it or check it out on wikipedia. Anselm of Canterbury was the first to propose it but they are all essentially the same. Many consider it to be a strong argument for God's existence. My argument is that: IF the Ontological argument is true, which many believe, then it is by neccesity incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. It would either mean that God is an "infinitarian" God or a Unitarian one, but not a triune God (the reasons are spelled out in my first post).

Now you could either say that the Ontological argument is wrong and why, or try to show me where I am wrong. If you don't have anything useful to add but only interested in spewing hateful speech, I think you could spend your time more wisely.

Christian love

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Hey Scoroccio,

You might find some of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas interesting. He addresses your question in his "Summa Theologiae".

Here is a link to some info.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1030.htm


I don't find it particularly easy to read. It makes my head hurt.

Peace.

 

[musterion]

He's back! That's his style all right.

 

[Scoroccio]

He's back! That's his style all right.

What are you on about?

 

[jamie]

Please show me how my argument is invalid then? If it so easy? Or maybe it's just that you are not so well acquainted with philosophical thinking and don't understand it?

But I do understand the paradigm of this forum. Your subject is taboo, not by me but by Sherman.

There is nothing you can say that has not already been said. And I did not say your argument is invalid.

 

[jamie]

You do know that the doctrine of the Trinity is purely based on greek platonic philosophy and simply could not be formulated without it.

So what?