Has God begat a son?

[RJM]

Quantum theory is logical. So is Schrodinger's Cat. They describe things in terms of probability, which puts them firmly within the fields of inductive logic and statistical analysis. Quantum physics does not violate any rules of logic, although it is also a relatively young field of study that we still have much to learn about.

I see a lot of abuses of supposed "logic" from people in this thread. I wonder if I accidentally caused that. I'll say that I've formally studied symbolic and modal logic at a university and I've gone beyond just what I learned in class. When I use the word, I mean it in a much stricter sense than just "reasonable."

I will say that, according to epistemic logic, we know that the impossible does not exist. So any claims about a being that can "do the impossible" are, by their very nature, illogical. There's not really any way to have a logical conversation about a conception like that.

There are some forms of nonclassical logic like paraconsistent logic where these discussions could take place but paraconsistent logic is often considered to be outdated in favor of multi-value logic and Bayesian analysis. These forms of nonclassical logic aren't meant to imply the existence of the impossible, either, but to help form an understanding when there are apparent contradictions in our data.

ETA: I should point out that this doesn't mean that conversations about things outside of logic are unproductive or can't be meaningful. That position is called "Logical Positivism" and it's been debunked for nearly a century now. It's just that this is more about theology and scriptural interpretation than logic.

Aesthetics and ethics are also examples of fields outside of logic, or that are "illogical" and I don't think it's reasonable to discount these entirely, either.

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?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

No. Then there would be two gods.

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

 

[Ella S.]

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?

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.

 

[Thomas]

However, Trinitarianism itself does violate the Law of Identity ...

And yet it has been explained how it does not, complex arguments that treat the proposition 'God' as unique.

 

[Ella S.]

And yet it has been explained how it does not, complex arguments that treat the proposition 'God' as unique.

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.)

 

[Thomas]

I have never heard Trinitarianism explained in a way that was logically possible ...

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.

If it rests on the proposition that "God" is unique, though, then that's actually still illogical and a form of special pleading.

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.

(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.)

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.]

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[dattaswami2]

No. Then there would be two gods.

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.

 

[Firedragon]

From previous discussions about Arianism, it has been proposed, I think in Arius's own letters, that the Son was begotten of the Father before time began

Why does God have to be logical according to human reason? Quantum theory isn't logical. Schrodinger's cat isn't logical. Is Spirit required to conform to human degrees of reason and logic? How should man try to limit the Divine to performing for human reason? Why should God have to be understandable to limited natural minds? That supposition is what doesn't make logical sense, imo

Scriptures use human terms and symbolism and parables to try to explain spiritual processes and laws that are 'beyond the veil' of human ability to conceive.Language is limited. Father and Son are human terms. It's Plato's cave. We only see the shadow dance of true reality.

Some do not accept the mysteries of Christianity
It doesn't make them go away, imo

Don't you think that negating logic and human reason to justify a belief statement in itself is self contradictory because that itself is a reason you are posing to justify your belief?

It's almost "I am reasoning with you to drop reasoning" which is a self contradicting statement.

 

[Firedragon]

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.

But in Christianity, Jesus is supposed to be Egenneesen. Like any human being gives seed to a human son. What you are saying is conceptual, but not in Christian theology or the Christian scripture. It's far, far, far apart.

It's a good concept, but not grounded in anything to do with Christianity.

 

[RJM]

to justify a belief statement ...

What statement?

 

[Firedragon]

What statement?

A belief statement.

 

[RJM]

A belief statement.

Which one?

 

[RJM]

The spirit moves as it wills. God isn't prescribed by human religions. What's logical about someone insisting that any religion is logical -- never mind that their own religion's logic is the only true voice of God?

The mystery of the relationship between Spirit and nature is the mystery of Christ. IMO

Spiritual laws often seem directly at odds with natural laws. It's a non-starter to begin to argue between religions on the basis of logic. The Son was/is conceived of the Father before time began. That was Arius's contention.

Nature is conceived of Spirit, before time and space. Spirit weaves nature. The wheel of Spirit turns the wheel of nature, but is not turned by it.

Christ encompasses all this stuff, IMO

 

[Firedragon]

Which one?

Any belief statement.

Don't you think that negating logic and human reason to justify a belief statement in itself is self contradictory because that itself is a reason you are posing to justify your belief?

It's almost "I am reasoning with you to drop reasoning" which is a self contradicting statement.