I have said this before and I continue to hold it to be an axiom: Math does not create reality; math simply describes it. Values and numbers are functions of man’s ability to abstractly define his environment for the purposes of explaining it and organizing it in the interest of taming the chaos. Values and numbers do not drive the motions of objects. This is a lie both knowingly and unwittingly foisted upon the world by scientists who, whether they recognize it or not, hold as the foundations of their knowledge a purely Platonist philosophical mindset. But to the contrary I submit that objects act according to their own ability to do and be FIRST, before man can ever seek to apply a mathematical/numerical construct to it in order to describe them. This is an absolute fact of the universe. Show me a law which precedes the motion of an object, and I will show you a religious shaman in a lab coat with horn rimmed glasses and speaking of proofs and theorems and tensor calculus.
When we speak of the “Trinity” in our churches, we speak of an understanding of an idea which is rooted in this “cart before the horse” fallacy of abstract theoretical ideas being the fathers and mothers of the tangible objects we observe. We fall prey to the Platonist understanding of the world, where reality isn’t real and what is really driving the bus is perpetually beyond us, in some sort of “spirit” world which can be neither seen nor heard nor felt because it is mutually exclusive to our reality. But nevertheless it is there…it is TRUTH, and only those people specially gifted (divinely dispensed) with pre-ordained knowledge possess the ability to explain our world to us. In this unique case of numbers, the mathematicians are those who were born into the world with the divine insight…able to parse the universe into categories of mathematics and theoretical physical laws in order to explain that what we see isn’t what is actually real.
And as good little scouts in the barbarian masses we nod and proclaim them the geniuses to a divine degree. Of what use are our senses when we have Einstein and Hawking and Lederman and Planck and Higgs to interpret the “truth” of our reality with their sizeable brains, in numbers and formulas that only a very small number of very strange (read: ”holy”) people understand?
And so here is what we do. We put three bananas on the table in front of our little rug rat and explain to him that there are “three bananas”. And what happens is that after a while the number three becomes the plumb line for that child’s reality…along with other values. So that from now on every time he or she sees a grouping of anything of three, he or she will see the three and the objects as utterly inseparable. A singular manifestation of a singular reality, when in fact, that is not the case. The number three is not actual. The objects ARE. And yet henceforth man is compelled to concede that NUMBER and OBJECT somehow exist as a complete and singular manifestation of his or her reality. Even though physical objects and abstract ideas are, in reality, utterly mutually exclusive, and can never be combined in a physical sense. That is to say an ACTUAL sense.
Before I go any further I want to preface this by saying that I wholly deny Plato’s idea of “forms”. Meaning the abstract “idea” of a thing, like “banana-ness” is the reality which allows man to formulate a concept of “banana” by looking at the real and physical but imperfect representations of this “form” in his environment. For the sake of argument, let’s indeed assume that the bananas in question are categorically identical to one another…but let me be clear. I do not accept that the concept of “banana” is anything more than that: an abstract concept. And that the actual manifestations of banana that we see with our eyes is what drives the concept. In other words, the bananas are real and the concept is not. The concept is an illusion of man’s abstract mind. But for my purposes and in order to make my point, we will assume that all bananas are the same.
So, in the case of the child and the three bananas on the table, there are and can be three only AFTER “banana”, the infinite quantity of the infinite whole, or one (a concept which is of supreme importance to my argument) are placed in a grouping which coincides with a previously accepted, consensual agreement of a wholly theoretical concept: the concept of three. A concept which reason tells us does not actually exist outside of the physical object (objects) which can then labeled and limited abstractly by this concept. A concept which would otherwise be absolute, infinite (undefined) and meaningless. The point here is this: which comes first, the bananas or the three? For without man’s mind, there is no such thing as three. There is only “banana” (and even this is really insufficient to describe my point because I’m forced to use language, which also does not exist without man). And banana, outside of the theoretical concept of number which is purely a function of man, are just “banana”, whether “one” or “many”. There is no number of bananas, there just IS. Bananas themselves are VALUELESS without a self-aware observer there to organize them abstractly. One banana is two banana, is nine banana, is a billion banana. The very concept of “banana” itself is infinite without the self-aware observer. There is just an IS…a physical manifestation of some THING, without limitation, without number, without value. The amount of the thing is irrelevant if we are discussing the same OBJECT. There is no rational distinction between ONE object and a million of the SAME object because the object, strictly speaking, is only limited as a function of man’s ability to see it and apply some kind of conceptual meaning to it which he can then agree upon with other men in order to form a mutually effective co-existent relationship. Apart from that, a banana is what it is what it is; and bananas are what they are what they are, and there is no actual difference between them. One or a thousand, it amounts to the same idea: banana. Whether one or a thousand, there are all the same IS: banana. Outside the context of an abstract mind, the infinite IS, banana, cannot be given a value. There cannot actually BE one banana; and there cannot actually be four bananas or a million. There can only be “banana”, regardless of how “many” of them exist.
Now, this is not a case of redundancy. It is simply an illustration of the infinite nature of objects which are identical when they are outside of man’s abstract mindset. There may not actually BE a redundancy of “banana”. Some are on the tree for the monkeys. Some on the ground for the rabbits or whatever. What I am saying is that actual “groups” of an IS is not logically contradictory. You can have more than one IS which serves a practical purpose, but which does not contradict the singular IS which is the infinite “self” of the object which may logically exist as identical “selves” .
In other words, SELF is infinite. Bananas are a form of self, and the self is infinite to itself, with a strict boundary between what is “banana” and what is NOT “banana”. With that said, because the self of banana is infinite, it cannot be given an actual number or value, but it CAN exist as physically separate manifestations of the same self TO a practical purpose. So, it is utterly logical that with the concept of infinity, one MUST equal many, and many MUST also equal one. There can indeed be a physical distinction, but not a NUMERICAL distinction, because numbers are nothing more than an abstract label conjured up by man’s mind. So, it is no more rational to declare that there can be only ONE of an infinite IS than to declare that there can be an INFINITE NUMBER of an infinite is because by definition that which is infinite cannot be limited by VALUE, because VALUE or number implies a limitation to that which cannot be limited because it is infinite. The only thing real about an infinite singularity (or self) is how it manifests itself physically, whether in the applicable “form” of “one” or of “many” or of both one AND many, which is actually the only logical conclusion…that an infinite singularity can and must be BOTH one and many because any other assumption automatically ascribes a number/value to the infinite object and thus becomes logically contradictory. Therefore, an infinite object can manifest itself, and will, in reality as both many and one, whichever is most efficacious for whatever action it is engaging in. I think of the wave/particle duality of light. In one circumstance, it can function as a singular infinite “light”, and in another it can function as “particles” of light. Now, light is particles…and these particles are massless and identical, and thus they must logically function as both many and one in order to be non-contradictory to their infinite nature. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, modern physics assumes the wave/particle duality for all particles. This, in my opinion, is due more to the fact that they are identical, and not a function of mass. Meaning, objects with mass also constitute a singular infinite IS provided they are physically and/or metaphysically identical.
This is a hard concept to grasp, I know, but the point is that when we are speaking of that which is infinite, we must understand that this does not mean that a numerical value is applicable. It is NOT. ANY number, one, three or a billion contradicts the notion of the IS being an IS. An IS is not a number. It is whatever it IS manifest in our observable world. Just as is the case with the wave/particle duality, observation is everything. And the idea of numerical one or many only exists and is only relevant when a self-aware observer is present. (And this means that existence is ultimately relative between “selves”, or “is’es”, but we won’t get into that now.)
And this of course brings us to God. I do not deny that God is Spirit, Son, and Father. What I deny is that this constitutes a “trinity” because I deny that an infinite self can be given a numerical value, particularly when it isn’t logical or relevant to do so for the efficacious organization of our world. God is ONE is the metaphysical statement which provides all the TRUTH we need to relate to Him, regardless of how “many” manifestations of the infinite God we observe. Add to this fact that, by definition, if something is infinite than ANY manifestation of it must be considered ALL of it, in accordance with Argo’s Universal Truth Number Six:
“Anything which proceeds directly from an absolute IS the absolute”
…yes, add this to the argument (so this makes God’s “finger” in Exodus ALL of God, and the fourth person of the “trinity”, for example), and you can easily see why the concept of God as a “trinity” is both irrational and irrelevant.
1 thought on “Denying the Trinity on the Basis of the NUMBER, Not the Persons: Argo’s concept of the infinite quantity of the infinite singularity (whole…or “one”)”
An interesting take on this is to study how the Greeks and Romans viewed us as atheists because Christians believed in a “one true God” and were not polytheists.
The Hebrew description of Yaweh is “One true God”. How that is manifested we only have descriptions of Father, son and Holy Spirit. In the OT, the coming One in Isaiah 9 is described as both Father and Counselor which is interesting. The Holy Spirit is rarely mentioned in the OT as far as I can tell. God is not referred to as Father much in the OT either but as Yaweh. (As far as I can tell, the word “Lord” was used for translation purposes although scholars disagree on it’s use)
I think we narrow God by insisting on the manifestation boxes. So much of what I see preached it seems they forget Jesus was actually a manifestation of God in the Flesh. And that same God indwells us now if we are believers.
So I get where you are coming from as Trinity is never described in the bible but a man made construct to explain God’s manifestations throughout scripture. Therefore I have no real problem with it.
. But you are certainly brave to even bring this up. Yells of heretic will be reverberating off the walls of evangelicalism if they get a hold of you! We are not allowed to question tradition or man made doctrines, you know. Good thing you live in America and not 16th Century Geneva. Servetus was putting forth some pretty serious declarations, too, about the Trinity. And look where that got him. Green wood ordered by Calvin when he refused to recant!