Raja Porus
Maya
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2025
- Posts
- 1,129
- Reputation
- 1,640
@PrinceLuenLeoncur
The classical law of identity has 3 neccesary conditions
A is A (reflexive law)
If A is B , then B is A (symmetric law)
If A is B, B is C, then A is C (transitive law)
Let's look at Trinity
1. God is the Father (per Trinity)
2. The Father is God (symmetric law)
3. God is the Son (per Trinity)
4. The Father is the Son (2 & 3, transitive law)
5 The Father is not the Son (per Trinity)
Contradiction , 4 & 5 clearly contradict one another, Trinity is inconsistent
The ONLY way out of this is to do away with classical identity. But once you allow relative identity, even polytheism becomes okay. You can no longer argue multiple conflicting wills can't be identical to one will. You can't even appeal to Leibniz's law of identity of Indiscernibles to argue for the impossibility of 2 neccesary beings.
In any case, since classical identity is more definitely established than the Trinity, we will reject the Trinity instead of classical logic
The classical law of identity has 3 neccesary conditions
A is A (reflexive law)
If A is B , then B is A (symmetric law)
If A is B, B is C, then A is C (transitive law)
Let's look at Trinity
1. God is the Father (per Trinity)
2. The Father is God (symmetric law)
3. God is the Son (per Trinity)
4. The Father is the Son (2 & 3, transitive law)
5 The Father is not the Son (per Trinity)
Contradiction , 4 & 5 clearly contradict one another, Trinity is inconsistent
The ONLY way out of this is to do away with classical identity. But once you allow relative identity, even polytheism becomes okay. You can no longer argue multiple conflicting wills can't be identical to one will. You can't even appeal to Leibniz's law of identity of Indiscernibles to argue for the impossibility of 2 neccesary beings.
In any case, since classical identity is more definitely established than the Trinity, we will reject the Trinity instead of classical logic
