O Trinitarian!
theIslampill2026-06-21Belief in God is apprehended involuntarily by unadulterated, pure reason, as a natural expression of the mind's inner machinations—an innate inclination of the human constitution, whereby God, the Necessary Being, is known as the ultimate cause and source of all existence and intelligibility.
This can be described as an intuitive, a priori knowledge that's available to all human beings by their very nature as rational beings.
Though innate knowledge, and present in all human beings, it may be obscured or suppressed by various factors, such as cultural or intellectual influences.
The vast majority (perhaps even all) of what we regularly and justifiably take ourselves to know comes about variously—and often through a corroborative combination of—precisely the same kinds of factors and considerations upon which the most solid, stable, and evincive cumulative case for the existence of God and the basic truths of religion can be made.
Belief in God is an innate knowledge that is accessible to all human beings by virtue of their rational nature.
However, the Logical Problem of the Trinity presents a challenge to the rationality of this belief, as there is no rationally possible solution within the classical paradigm of logic.
In the classical paradigm of logic, which underlines all intelligible & meaningful exchange of information — there is no rationally possible solution to the Logical Problem of the Trinity. I.E. there is no rational route for inference of the belief itself.
Accepting the Trinity conflicts with reason, defies innate principles, and obstructs meaningful conversations.
Blind acceptance leads to blind defense that lacks resolution: expected when the Trinity undermines cognitive faculties and knowledge.
I can't accept what lacks a route to acceptance. If the belief is incoherent, discussions about it seem futile.
Equivocating between God's incomprehensibility and the belief's incomprehensibility does not provide a solution to the belief's logical problem, as it suggests that our innate faculties for understanding and logical reasoning are inadequate.
To suggesting that our innate principles of understanding and foundations for logical reasoning and rational inquiry are not adequate is of a paradigm against that of the classical, and as such, necessarily cannot be rationally imparted. Basically, it just means thinking that we don’t have innate faculties for understanding and conveying true belief from and of God.
Thus, the Trinity cannot be a part of true faith as it cannot be believed by virtue of what it is, and its adherents can only defend it blindly without a rationally possible solution to the Problem (or coherent explanation of the belief).
Ultimately, the belief challenges the very foundations of rational inquiry and understanding, and it is unacceptable to accept something that goes against our innate faculties and principles of understanding. Such incoherencies we incline to know (and must know) as false—by the very same inclination through which we apprehend basic belief in God.
Which, obviously God wants us to have meaningful conversation about true belief.
Trinity makes that ultimately impossible and entails the use of words that mean nothing and tell us nothing about our belief about God.
As such, you can only defend it blindly and hope a solution exists and is out there—while just not within our grasps.
Fundamentally, I can’t accept something there is no route for actually accepting especially while my innate faculties incline to knowing it is false and impossible.
O Trinitarian, if you think I don't deserve to understand what you believe, or that God Almighty didn't give us the innate faculties to accept and understand true belief from and of Him, then okay — I'm not sure why you think this Trinity should ever be discussed.
- Knowledge is the successful product of our properly functioning cognitive faculties exercising their skill
- The Trinity, in light of our cognitive faculties, is illogical and incoherent [—and we are absent any defeaters to the contrary]
c. Therefore, if the Trinity is true, the products of our properly functioning cognitive faculties exercising their skill cannot be considered as reliable for truth, and the belief in the trinity can never truly be considered knowledge
This polytheistic incoherence is not the way of Noah, not the way of Abraham, not the way of Moses—to have an indefensible, illogical belief that cannot be communicated or understood, and that tries to excuse blind-leading-the-blind by appealing to God's being beyond our sight.
True belief of, and from, God is the firmest conviction and highest certainty: it is the truth in which there is no doubt.
We obviously agree that no one's mind or vision can completely encompass God.
But it is clear in scripture that belief is logically reasoned upon evidence manifest from God.
God being incomprehensible does not make God illogical or contradictory: He is perfectly wise and perfectly rational.
His commands are perfect, flawless, and good.
While we agree that our understanding of God is limited, it is important to recognise that true belief is rational, based on evidence revealed by God: it is coherent and consistent with our intuitive experience. We are called to fully accept and submit to His Will.
However, the criticism of the logical problem of the Trinity remains: the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly illogical.
We can understand and accept what God prescribes for us, and must do so, completely: this reality means sincere affirmation of that rationality and basis from which belief springs forth.
We can, likewise, understand that the Trinity is an incoherence and an innovation—Like we can know and understand that Atheism is an indefensible, incoherent innovation.
God knows what is best for us, and wants what is best for us; He knows best how to describe Himself to us in a meaningful way for us to believe with all of our hearts, all of our minds, all of our souls: He calls us to submit to Him with our entire being. He gives us signs, reasoning, and evidence for our hearts and intellects to see inside and outside of ourselves that He is the undeniable truth.
How could we then accept what is, logically, unacceptable ?
When we were made to accept the truth from Him, and He makes it easy for us to do so ?
"God is One." That is not unacceptable.
"God is All-Aware." That is not unacceptable. It's not hard to comprehend.
"God created the heavens and the earth, and everything between, and everything beneath." That is not incomprehensible. It is not illogical.
O Trinitarian! Be sincere. Be honest.
You know that "God hates idolatry/false worship" is something that we can comprehend, and is an understanding that we can act upon.
When you start asserting things that are illogical and contradictory, you ignore the clear and unequivocal commands from God, and overlook their perfection.
How do you attempt to excuse this? By pointing to your imperfection as proof that imperfect & contradictory commands are also somehow perfect?
This is just avoiding that NONE of what the Trinity entails actually makes sense (or communicates meaningfully) — as though its senselessness is proof of anything except its falsehood and ungodliness.
Our imperfection is why we need to accept and stand upon what God reveals, which is perfect and flawless, and non-contradictory; it does not excuse accepting contradictions blindly.
How could you deny that He bestows of His Bounty upon whosoever He wills?
Could you at once claim that only God may be the logical explanation for our nature and the natural universe — while you are ignoring that the only logical explanation of the Trinity is that it is false?
The same logical functioning of our natural faculties that leads us to God, leads us to knowing the Trinity is false.
Does the coherence and logical consistency that "God bestows of His Bounty upon whosever He wills" mean that you would accept it, or deny it?
If you accept it, and attempt to argue for our faculties accepting some true-contradiction as some "Bounty" from Him that you call "Trinity", then you are subverting those very same faculties which attain knowledge through the success of their proper functioning, and have removed the epistemological warrant in your foundation for acquiring any knowledge whatsoever. The foundations of your beliefs become not only unsustainable and unexplainable, but also contradictory and self-refuting.
It is important to uphold coherence and logical consistency in our beliefs.
Isaiah 1:18 — English Standard Version
"18 Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."
Proverbs 14:12-18 — English Standard Version
"12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way to death.
13 Even in laughter the heart may ache,
and the end of joy may be grief.
14 The backslider in heart will be filled with the fruit of his ways,
and a good man will be filled with the fruit of his ways.
15 The simple believes everything,
but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
16 One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil,
but a fool is reckless and careless.
17 A man of quick temper acts foolishly,
and a man of evil devices is hated.
18 The simple inherit folly,
but the prudent are crowned with knowledge."
Proverbs 18:1-2,12-15 — English Standard Version
"1 Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire;
he breaks out against all sound judgment.
2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.
...
12 Before destruction a man's heart is haughty,
but humility comes before honor.
13 If one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame.
14 A man's spirit will endure sickness,
but a crushed spirit who can bear?
15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge,
and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."
but you're trying to use your human understanding!!!
Pointing out that God is, in some way, beyond our comprehension —while accepting the ascription of concepts outside of our natural human understanding— does not permit the ascription of concepts against our natural human understanding; rather, it underlines the necessity of belief within the limits of human understanding, being based on evidence and pure reason: not illogical or irrational, but consistent and coherent.
Recognising that something —even God— is beyond our full comprehension doesn't imply a license for its involvement in illogical or irrational concepts
What criteria for a judgment upon propositions or a set? and don't say God transcends logic
What would you think an objective (or agnostic) audience should agree to as a necessary criterion (or which necessary criteria) for evaluating any proposition (or any set of propositions)?
As to how we know anything— we know through 3 sources:
- sound sense perception,
- reliable reporting, and
- logic & reasoning.
These base principles of rationality (such as the laws of logic) are why, for example, we —logically— count by "identity"... by what each discernible, particular thing is.
These innate logical principles, which underlie all meaningful communication and rational inquiry, are for supposing coherent abstraction—such as to what accepts its existence being actualised in reality: that the cause and explanation of any proposition must be non-arbitrary.
The only being that is unknown through the former two sources of sensory perception and reporting (that is Unseen — al-Ghaib), that can be directly apprehended through the latter (logic & reasoning) is the existence of the Necessary Being (the Creator) by that innate, necessary knowledge and the further exercise of its pure logical principles.
i.e., there are things that are unseen, and we innately incline —through our original disposition— to knowing the only thing we can innately know among the Unseen: the Creator.
Reasoning is facilitated for us by the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause: He instilled in us the faculties that incline to the apprehension of truth and knowledge, especially the truth from and about Him so that we may understand it, communicate it, verify it, and act upon it [the truth].
Logic is a faculty instilled in us, facilitated and enabled by the Creator, the Most Intelligent — Who knows the creation better than the creation knows itself.
The Creator is rational, not irrational; the truth —as is true belief in the Creator— is rational, not irrational.
If this innate knowledge and logical principles did not accurately reflect the nature of reality, how could we have any confidence in the conclusions we draw about the world and ourselves?
Indeed, these principles (which are necessary truths by their very nature) are innate and must be grounded in the necessary cause of externality itself.
By & large, what is mental is apprehended by what we soundly perceive through the senses, and what is mental in this way was at some point not in that way (not apprehended by the mind or senses)—our (mental) application of reason to these abstractions not being committed to our perception of the extramentals, but rather to our rationality conceiving abstractions of and about the extramentals.
Logic in this sense does not apply to beings, or to what is in extramental reality — we apply it to our minds, to abstractions about what is in reality or what may be real; we do not apply reason and logic to what is beyond it (the extramental — any particular being, as they transcend the reach of the faculty), but to mental abstractions of and about the extramental—perceived, or not perceived.
The attaining of knowledge of any of these particulars cannot be through reason and logic alone; as mentioned above, the sole exception to this some knowledge of God and His Existence.
logical reasoning functions, therefore, not to limit any particular extramental being — but rather to limit the mind to supposing coherently, being a coherent criteria for judgments in critical thinking.
As such, to the person who states it, I would ask: what do you mean "God transcends logic" ?
The dictionary definition of "transcendence" is "existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level"
So...is it "through logic, God is experienced beyond the normal and physical level" ?
In which case "God transcends logic" means "knowledge of God is logically coherent and directly available, beyond the normal and physical level"
If you mean "God cannot be known of or about in any way by logic alone" is what "God transcends logic" means, then
a) this is verifiably false
b) it actually only applies to everything but God
c) I am not sure why you could then find it necessary, or even possible, to reason with others about the true belief from and about God
d) it seems you are fine with the rational possibility of any (even inconsistent) set of propositions applied to your theological beliefs (and in which case I am not sure why anyone would find it necessary, or even possible, to reason with you)
e) I am not sure how you could even demonstrate that a set of propositions (which you do not claim to hold to) are not the same as what you do hold to about God (for example, how could you dispute that you are not eating God when you eat breakfast? this would involve logic that God would transcend, and it would seem possible in your paradigm. it may even kill him at any point!)
Belief in God is apprehended involuntarily by unadulterated, pure reason, as a natural expression of the mind's inner machinations—an innate inclination of the human constitution, whereby God, the Necessary Being, is known as the ultimate cause and source of all existence and intelligibility.
This can be described as an intuitive, a priori knowledge that's available to all human beings by their very nature as rational beings.
Though innate knowledge, and present in all human beings, it may be obscured or suppressed by various factors, such as cultural or intellectual influences.
The vast majority (perhaps even all) of what we regularly and justifiably take ourselves to know comes about variously—and often through a corroborative combination of—precisely the same kinds of factors and considerations upon which the most solid, stable, and evincive cumulative case for the existence of God and the basic truths of religion can be made.
Belief in God is an innate knowledge that is accessible to all human beings by virtue of their rational nature.
However, the Logical Problem of the Trinity presents a challenge to the rationality of this belief, as there is no rationally possible solution within the classical paradigm of logic.
In the classical paradigm of logic, which underlines all intelligible & meaningful exchange of information — there is no rationally possible solution to the Logical Problem of the Trinity. I.E. there is no rational route for inference of the belief itself.
Accepting the Trinity conflicts with reason, defies innate principles, and obstructs meaningful conversations.
Blind acceptance leads to blind defense that lacks resolution: expected when the Trinity undermines cognitive faculties and knowledge.
I can't accept what lacks a route to acceptance. If the belief is incoherent, discussions about it seem futile.
Equivocating between God's incomprehensibility and the belief's incomprehensibility does not provide a solution to the belief's logical problem, as it suggests that our innate faculties for understanding and logical reasoning are inadequate.
To suggesting that our innate principles of understanding and foundations for logical reasoning and rational inquiry are not adequate is of a paradigm against that of the classical, and as such, necessarily cannot be rationally imparted. Basically, it just means thinking that we don’t have innate faculties for understanding and conveying true belief from and of God.
Thus, the Trinity cannot be a part of true faith as it cannot be believed by virtue of what it is, and its adherents can only defend it blindly without a rationally possible solution to the Problem (or coherent explanation of the belief).
Ultimately, the belief challenges the very foundations of rational inquiry and understanding, and it is unacceptable to accept something that goes against our innate faculties and principles of understanding. Such incoherencies we incline to know (and must know) as false—by the very same inclination through which we apprehend basic belief in God.
Which, obviously God wants us to have meaningful conversation about true belief.
Trinity makes that ultimately impossible and entails the use of words that mean nothing and tell us nothing about our belief about God.
As such, you can only defend it blindly and hope a solution exists and is out there—while just not within our grasps.
Fundamentally, I can’t accept something there is no route for actually accepting especially while my innate faculties incline to knowing it is false and impossible.
O Trinitarian, if you think I don't deserve to understand what you believe, or that God Almighty didn't give us the innate faculties to accept and understand true belief from and of Him, then okay — I'm not sure why you think this Trinity should ever be discussed.
1. Knowledge is the successful product of our properly functioning cognitive faculties exercising their skill
2. The Trinity, in light of our cognitive faculties, is illogical and incoherent [—and we are absent any defeaters to the contrary]
c. Therefore, if the Trinity is true, the products of our properly functioning cognitive faculties exercising their skill cannot be considered as reliable for truth, and the belief in the trinity can never truly be considered knowledge
This polytheistic incoherence is not the way of Noah, not the way of Abraham, not the way of Moses—to have an indefensible, illogical belief that cannot be communicated or understood, and that tries to excuse blind-leading-the-blind by appealing to God's being beyond our sight.
True belief of, and from, God is the firmest conviction and highest certainty: it is the truth in which there is no doubt.
We obviously agree that no one's mind or vision can completely encompass God.
But it is clear in scripture that belief is logically reasoned upon evidence manifest from God.
God being incomprehensible does not make God illogical or contradictory: He is perfectly wise and perfectly rational.
His commands are perfect, flawless, and good.
While we agree that our understanding of God is limited, it is important to recognise that true belief is rational, based on evidence revealed by God: it is coherent and consistent with our intuitive experience. We are called to fully accept and submit to His Will.
However, the criticism of the logical problem of the Trinity remains: the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly illogical.
We can understand and accept what God prescribes for us, and must do so, completely: this reality means sincere affirmation of that rationality and basis from which belief springs forth.
We can, likewise, understand that the Trinity is an incoherence and an innovation—Like we can know and understand that Atheism is an indefensible, incoherent innovation.
God knows what is best for us, and wants what is best for us; He knows best how to describe Himself to us in a meaningful way for us to believe with all of our hearts, all of our minds, all of our souls: He calls us to submit to Him with our entire being. He gives us signs, reasoning, and evidence for our hearts and intellects to see inside and outside of ourselves that He is the undeniable truth.
How could we then accept what is, logically, unacceptable ?
When we were made to accept the truth from Him, and He makes it easy for us to do so ?
"God is One." That is not unacceptable.
"God is All-Aware." That is not unacceptable. It's not hard to comprehend.
"God created the heavens and the earth, and everything between, and everything beneath." That is not incomprehensible. It is not illogical.
O Trinitarian! Be sincere. Be honest.
You know that "God hates idolatry/false worship" is something that we can comprehend, and is an understanding that we can act upon.
When you start asserting things that are illogical and contradictory, you ignore the clear and unequivocal commands from God, and overlook their perfection.
How do you attempt to excuse this? By pointing to your imperfection as proof that imperfect & contradictory commands are also somehow perfect?
This is just avoiding that NONE of what the Trinity entails actually makes sense (or communicates meaningfully) — as though its senselessness is proof of anything except its falsehood and ungodliness.
Our imperfection is why we need to accept and stand upon what God reveals, which is perfect and flawless, and non-contradictory; it does not excuse accepting contradictions blindly.
How could you deny that He bestows of His Bounty upon whosoever He wills?
Could you at once claim that only God may be the logical explanation for our nature and the natural universe — while you are ignoring that the only logical explanation of the Trinity is that it is false?
The same logical functioning of our natural faculties that leads us to God, leads us to knowing the Trinity is false.
Does the coherence and logical consistency that "God bestows of His Bounty upon whosever He wills" mean that you would accept it, or deny it?
If you accept it, and attempt to argue for our faculties accepting some true-contradiction as some "Bounty" from Him that you call "Trinity", then you are subverting those very same faculties which attain knowledge through the success of their proper functioning, and have removed the epistemological warrant in your foundation for acquiring any knowledge whatsoever. The foundations of your beliefs become not only unsustainable and unexplainable, but also contradictory and self-refuting.
It is important to uphold coherence and logical consistency in our beliefs.
Isaiah 1:18 — English Standard Version
"18 Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."
Proverbs 14:12-18 — English Standard Version
"12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way to death.
13 Even in laughter the heart may ache,
and the end of joy may be grief.
14 The backslider in heart will be filled with the fruit of his ways,
and a good man will be filled with the fruit of his ways.
15 The simple believes everything,
but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
16 One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil,
but a fool is reckless and careless.
17 A man of quick temper acts foolishly,
and a man of evil devices is hated.
18 The simple inherit folly,
but the prudent are crowned with knowledge."
Proverbs 18:1-2,12-15 — English Standard Version
"1 Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire;
he breaks out against all sound judgment.
2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.
...
12 Before destruction a man's heart is haughty,
but humility comes before honor.
13 If one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame.
14 A man's spirit will endure sickness,
but a crushed spirit who can bear?
15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge,
and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."
> but you're trying to use your human understanding!!!
Pointing out that God is, in some way, beyond our comprehension —while accepting the ascription of concepts outside of our natural human understanding— does not permit the ascription of concepts against our natural human understanding; rather, it underlines the necessity of belief within the limits of human understanding, being based on evidence and pure reason: not illogical or irrational, but consistent and coherent.
Recognising that something —even God— is beyond our full comprehension doesn't imply a license for its involvement in illogical or irrational concepts
What criteria for a judgment upon propositions or a set? and don't say God transcends logic
What would you think an objective (or agnostic) audience should agree to as a necessary criterion (or which necessary criteria) for evaluating any proposition (or any set of propositions)?
As to how we know anything— we know through 3 sources:
- sound sense perception,
- reliable reporting, and
- logic & reasoning.
These base principles of rationality (such as the laws of logic) are why, for example, we —logically— count by "identity"... by what each discernible, particular thing is.
These innate logical principles, which underlie all meaningful communication and rational inquiry, are for supposing coherent abstraction—such as to what accepts its existence being actualised in reality: that the cause and explanation of any proposition must be non-arbitrary.
The only being that is unknown through the former two sources of sensory perception and reporting (that is Unseen — al-Ghaib), that can be directly apprehended through the latter (logic & reasoning) is the existence of the Necessary Being (the Creator) by that innate, necessary knowledge and the further exercise of its pure logical principles.
i.e., there are things that are unseen, and we innately incline —through our original disposition— to knowing the only thing we can innately know among the Unseen: the Creator.
Reasoning is facilitated for us by the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause: He instilled in us the faculties that incline to the apprehension of truth and knowledge, especially the truth from and about Him so that we may understand it, communicate it, verify it, and act upon it [the truth].
Logic is a faculty instilled in us, facilitated and enabled by the Creator, the Most Intelligent — Who knows the creation better than the creation knows itself.
The Creator is rational, not irrational; the truth —as is true belief in the Creator— is rational, not irrational.
If this innate knowledge and logical principles did not accurately reflect the nature of reality, how could we have any confidence in the conclusions we draw about the world and ourselves?
Indeed, these principles (which are necessary truths by their very nature) are innate and must be grounded in the necessary cause of externality itself.
By & large, what is mental is apprehended by what we soundly perceive through the senses, and what is mental in this way was at some point not in that way (not apprehended by the mind or senses)—our (mental) application of reason to these abstractions not being committed to our perception of the extramentals, but rather to our rationality conceiving abstractions of and about the extramentals.
Logic in this sense does not apply to beings, or to what is in extramental reality — we apply it to our minds, to abstractions about what is in reality or what may be real; we do not apply reason and logic to what is beyond it (the extramental — any particular being, as they transcend the reach of the faculty), but to mental abstractions of and about the extramental—perceived, or not perceived.
The attaining of knowledge of any of these particulars cannot be through reason and logic alone; as mentioned above, the sole exception to this some knowledge of God and His Existence.
logical reasoning functions, therefore, not to limit any particular extramental being — but rather to limit the mind to supposing coherently, being a coherent criteria for judgments in critical thinking.
As such, to the person who states it, I would ask: what do you mean "God transcends logic" ?
The dictionary definition of "transcendence" is "existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level"
So...is it "through logic, God is experienced beyond the normal and physical level" ?
In which case "God transcends logic" means "knowledge of God is logically coherent and directly available, beyond the normal and physical level"
If you mean "God cannot be known of or about in any way by logic alone" is what "God transcends logic" means, then
a) this is verifiably false
b) it actually only applies to everything but God
c) I am not sure why you could then find it necessary, or even possible, to reason with others about the true belief from and about God
d) it seems you are fine with the rational possibility of any (even inconsistent) set of propositions applied to your theological beliefs (and in which case I am not sure why anyone would find it necessary, or even possible, to reason with you)
e) I am not sure how you could even demonstrate that a set of propositions (which you do not claim to hold to) are not the same as what you do hold to about God (for example, how could you dispute that you are not eating God when you eat breakfast? this would involve logic that God would transcend, and it would seem possible in your paradigm. it may even kill him at any point!)