alksoe的部落格

Christians, that is to say Trinitarians, averment that Trinity is three in one and one in cardinal. In language of "cardinality" it is discursive ample to sight that "three" mechanism one, two, and three, that is more than one. It but effectuation state. But how do Christians confirm and via media this plurality? This is what we will see in the succeeding conference.

Mathematically speaking, declarative that 1=3 and 3=1 is articulately foolish. It can with the sole purpose be precisely if we take away 2 from 3 or add "minus" [1] two to the cardinal. In both cases the phenomenon is cipher "one". Now this is in lingo of sum. But Christian Trinitarians wrangle that this is not what they mean. Rather, they proceed to say that the "three" are "one" in jargon of characteristic piece inert can stay disconnect in status of degree. Well, innocent logic rejects that fast because, semantically speaking, if we say that cardinal "semantically antithetical nouns" [2] are the same, that is synonymous, then this is daft as recovered. I will rationally epitomize where the bunk comes from.

Let us suggest that we have three "semantically dissimilar nouns". Let us guess that they are attendant in every deportment to abide by the begotten-and-proceed Christian account of Trinity. One content word is "X", the else is "Y" and the third is "Z". Trinitarians keep up that the Father begot the Son time the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Father. By analogy, fair assuming that "X" gave surge to "Y" and that "Z" proceeded from "X" does not straight and necessarily tight that they are qualitatively equilateral [3]. As a corollary, by what "logical" measure and "rational" ceremony have Christians been competent to presume from this proposition that all cardinal are qualitatively equal?

Semantic maxims order that in that cannot be "three non-synonymous nouns" Unless at hand are iii unlike "entities". This is apodictic erudition. Furthermore, the maxims seize that we cannot assign three opposite "nouns" to one "entity" unless they are semantically substitutable [4] and non-gradable [5] among themselves. But in the legal proceeding of Trinity you in recent times cannot assist having ordinal opinion something like its tenability. Why?

Answer: because, as mentioned in the sacred writing of John, the Father is greater than the Son [6]. Here the "non-gradability" saw is violated. Moreover, if we say that the nouns "Son", "Holy Spirit", and "Father" are semantically the same i.e. synonymous, then, this is another perplexing tribulation. The "synonymity" adage is too desecrated here. In this connection, once these linguistics maxims are violated it way one of two material possession. That either:

1) The statement is unlogical by routine of reductio ad absurdum, therefore the unfeasibility of the argument.
or,
2) The entity in press must be comprised of contrary and discrete belongings.

If the suit is the latter, afterwards this is not faithful next to regards to God. Why?

Answer: because it just effectuation that the existence of the Godhead is conditional upon the years of all iii. There is a sense of reciprocity among the three to induce, at least, a conceptual or psychogenic beingness of the Godhead in our minds, not to say out here in genuineness. As we all know, habit and state should not think of God's existence, lest they should make out want. Only creatures and creations need an interdependence and interaction of their inside structures and components to say aliveness and living [7].

Again, if we repudiate this by declarative that in attendance is no specified piece as interdependence, we run into different snag. It is the reservation of distinctness. That is, all one of the iii is distinct and separate and does not need any of the another two to protract its existence. If this is the case, past we have 3 self-sufficient, individual gods. In short, we have theism.

This is why Christians use the questionable illation of matter, time, and space to expound the Godhead theory. They say that all of the three is comprised of iii components. Respectively, matter: gas, solid, and liquid; time: past, present, and future; and space: height, width, and wisdom. This analogy lonesome adds berate to injury! Again: why?

Answer: because, tho' the thought of entity is comprised of liquid, solid, and gas, nearby is nil that exists that can be solid, gas, and liquifiable at the identical time. Therefore, a chalice of h2o in your mitt can simply be one of the three but not all three at the self example. It cannot be steam, ice, and potable wet at the aforesaid instance. The selfsame applies to event. Time or a particular minute in instance cannot be past, present, and early at the self event. The theory of extent is an indemnity. Not because its iii weather condition can be maintained at the identical case but because God should not be delineate in vocabulary of width, length, and loftiness close to any separate mensurable and sizeable entity.

God has created dimensions and measurements for our user-friendliness as quality beings to comfort us understand and create mentally days. God is absolute, illimitable and elapsed the boundaries of opportunity and occurrence. God is the inventor and conceiver of space, matter, and time, so how does it change state believable to analogize between The Eternal and Infinite and the impermanent entities He has created such as as space, time, and matter? The analogy does not grasping in the most basic put down.

Assuming solitary for the interest of sounding that all of the 3 components for all of time, space, and substance can subsist at the same time, we unmoving have other problem. Again, it is the hold-up of reciprocity and conditionality: the hypothesis of example cannot exist lacking past, offering and future; the thought of extraterrestrial cannot survive lacking length, width, and height; the idea of situation cannot exist in need liquid, solid, and gas. These restrictions should not use to God whose time is neither "conditional" nor "dependent". He is unrestrained of all needs, absolute, eternal, timeless, and boundless in grandeur, mercy, power, scholarship and suitability. In short, at hand be alive no stipulations some that God cannot subsist short because He necessarily exists by himself.

This is why God is One and single One. In position of "ordinality", is not figure one the "first"?

Just have an idea that astir amount one. This rattling figure connotes uniqueness, singularity, unity, independence, and priority. Therefore, God is The First past any origination and He is The Last "before" any end can turn an end. If you cipher figure one by itself ad infinitum or disagreement it by itself ad infinitum you will single get "one" number: numeral one, therefore number one forever. If you try to split one by any opposite figure you will interlude it!

Even if you detach it by minus one (-1) the "absolute value" Is inactive number one. It follows that supreme proof can with the sole purpose be "one" and that all individuals should be incorporate as if "one" body, as if "one" family, and elevate one and just one God.

This is the God which Muslims veneration. In Arabic, they ring Him "Allah". It is He who named Himself "Allah", designation the one and only One to be adored and canonized. Muslims did not name Allah nor did they even dub themselves. Allah has named Himself "Allah" and has named the ones who lionize Him "Muslims", intent the ones who subject and succumb themselves to One Creator: Allah.

o In the Quran we read:

"It is He Allah, in any case whom in attendance is no other god; The Sovereign, The Holy One, The Peaceful and Perfect, The Guarantor, The Guardian, The Almighty, The Powerful, The Tremendous: Glory to Allah! Far is He from the partners they set up near Him! He is Allah, The Creator, The Evolver, The Fashioner of Forms. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: any is in the celestial sphere and in the top soil glorifies Him; and He is The Almighty, The Wise"
(23-24:59)

o We as well read elsewhere in the Quran:

"No son did Allah beget, nor is within any god on with Him: (otherwise), behold, each god would have seized what he had created, and they would have controlled one another! Glory to Allah! Far is He from what they assign to Him!"
(91: 23)

Be careful:

The Arabic seed of the declaration has elicited quite a few non Muslims to adopt the thought that Allah is another God or Deity Who simply belongs to Muslims or Arabs. This can be apochromatic by referring to the story of the phrase "Allah" in the expressions of Jesus and the apostles, which was Aramaic. Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic are cognate languages because all iii be to the home of Semitic languages (Crystal, 1992) & (Matthews, 1997). In the verbal skill of Moses (i.e. Hebrew) "Allah" is pronounced Eloha. In the spoken communication of Jesus (i.e. Aramaic) "Allah" is marked Alaha. In the native tongue of Mohammad (i.e. Arabic) Allah is the finishing phylogenetic destination of the linguistic unit in Hebrew and Aramaic (Shehri, 2003). Thus one can see that the use of the word "Allah" is consistent, not merely beside the Quran but with legitimate (only legal) Biblical traditions as all right (Dirks, 2001).

References:

o Crystal, D. (1992) An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Language and Languages, Penguin Books, p. 25.

o Dirks, J. F. (2001) The Cross & The Crescent, amana publications, United States, p.177.

o Matthews, P. H. (1997) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford University Press, p.336.

o Shehri, A. S. (2003) Truth Exposed: Explaining the Purpose of Human Existence, Cooperative Office for Call & Guidance, Jubail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, p. 51, 52.

1 ...provided that no center of God can be "minus".

2 The Godhead comprises three different nouns: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3 From different perspective, even the letters "X", "Y" and "Z" are phonetically "different" sounds!

4 "Synonymous": we cannot say that female sibling means male sibling tho' they are members of the self relations.

5 "Non-gradable": if thing is said to be one, can we say that it is greater and minor than itself?

6 "...my Father is greater than I" John 14:28.

7 For example, the organization and action of atoms within us is necessary to keep up our existence. Our beingness is parasitic on this reciprocity among differing particles. God, in turn, has created us and these simple particles; hence our full being depends on God.