"All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.
That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
Actually, it does. A set is not an element of itself. (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as aspects of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god. Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person. In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.
"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.
You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence,
G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by
A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier
simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
Actually, either way is fine. The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless. Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability. In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically. That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions: the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.
Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom
a set is not an element of itself for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic: to amplify and explore new possibilities.
But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken. But the only
real concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e.,
avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory. Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise. I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before. Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.
I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)
So whether or not
A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
C. there is no such anything of any sort
Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.
We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.
The point is really do we agree how to act
and work together; what laws or language do we use
to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.
God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.
What you're saying is false.
God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things
only. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is
not subjective.
What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.
Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin. You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence. Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is
not scientifically falsifiable!
We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.
Science doesn't do us; we do science. The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that. Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents. We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.
Moi? LMAO!!
