Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #8

Each human being is created in the image of its Divine Creator and received from Him brains to think and to consider what is right and what is wrong and to have an aim to go somewhere, either in the direction God wants him or her to go or to go in opposition to God.

We must know that the oldest human cultures were monotheistic, them believing in One Supreme Higher Being Which was the Cause of everything. We can find they might have had different names for that Divine Creator, but their ideas about Him ran parallel. Only in a later stadium polytheism (belief in many gods) developed as civilization aged. But in many of those groups having people being called Polytheists we can find often that they have a Main god” or “a “Father god” or a “Mother god” who has similar qualities or attributes as their subgods. but we may say

Even in polytheistic religions, there usually exists the one “primary god” who is the most powerful.

Concerning the Christians, it is very strange that they are all called monotheists, though we can find those who worship a Trinity of which the subgod Jesus has lesser qualities than the Main God or Father God. In a certain way it is not understandable that they call others, whose subgods could be more described as qualities of the Father God, polytheists whilst they themselves consider themselves monotheists.

apologeticsfromchrist writes

Greg L. Bahnsen (1948 – 1995) American Calvinist philosopher, apologist, and debater, minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full-time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies (SCCCS).

Their ultimate is their own ability to reason and ours is The Bible. Our ultimate says that they are suppressing knowledge of God and as a result they reason foolishly. so should we not approach them with the assumption of our ultimate? I would recommend the book Greg Bahsen’s work called Presuppositional apologetics. Its good and goes more in depth. {Stop saying that it’s ‘obvious’ that God exists}

Some wonder

Since God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then wouldn’t God want to make her message in the Bible to be clear and not vague/ambiguous? {The Argument from Biblical Confusion against Christianity}

But the God, Creator of the universe, is very clear in His infallible Word. It are many people who try to see other things in it or twist the words, like when there is written

son of God

they refuse to think of it as Jesus being the son of God and are convinced that Jesus is the

god the son.

and every time think it is god when there is written

son of God

By twisting those words and creating such human dogma they encounter lots of things which do seem very complicated or even in contradiction with each other. For example by taking Jesus as their god they also create a mother for that god. Mary (Maria or Miriam) as such has than for many Christians also become the holy Mother of God.

Given the power and knowledge of God, we see how God (if God exists) could have easily made the bible to be much clearer. And given the goodness of God, we would expect God to want to make this the case. That’s because an all-good Being would desire for everyone to know what is true. The upshot is that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Being would not tolerate confusion, especially confusion around religious questions. A foritori, the Christian God would not tolerate confusion either, since Christians claim Yahweh is God, and the New Testaments says that God is not the author of confusion. {The Argument from Biblical Confusion against Christianity}

That writer seems to overlook that The God of the Bible makes everything very clear in His word he has given mankind. It are men who call themselves theologians who have obscured God’s word. Throughout the ages so many philosophers and ‘thinkers’ have brought their philosophy into the Word of God and created a lot of fantasies many people came to believe they were so written in the Bible.

St. Thomas Aquinas, painting attributed to Sandro Botticelli, 15th century.
St. Thomas Aquinas – Italian Christian theologian and philosopher – painting attributed to Sandro Botticelli, 15th century.

Many pre-Socratic philosophers thought that no logically coherent account of motion and change could be given and many looked for solutions to mankind’s question about pre-life or pre-existence and after-life or life after death. The Italian San Tommaso d’Aquino, byname Doctor Angelicus (Latin: “Angelic Doctor”) better known in English countries as Thomas Aquinas, also called Aquinas, (1224/25, -1274) who was canonized July 18, 1323; as an Italian Dominican theologian is considered as one of the foremost medieval Scholastics. He developed his own conclusions from Aristotelian premises, notably in the metaphysics of personality, creation, and Providence. As a theologian he was responsible in his two masterpieces, the Summa theologiae and the Summa contra gentiles, for the classical systematization of Latin theology. His doctrinal system and the explanations and developments made by his followers are known as Thomism. Although many modern Roman Catholic theologians do not find St. Thomas altogether congenial, he is nevertheless recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its foremost Western philosopher and theologian.

Aquinas was aware nowhere in the Bible can be found that God would be a person or that He would be a Trinity or Tri-une Person. In 1a.29.3 his first argument is this:

“It seems that the word ‘person’ should not be used of God. For Dionysius says,

‘No one should ever dare to say or think about the hidden divinity, which surpasses all substances, anything other than what we find formulated by God in the sacred Scriptures.’

Now we do not find the term ‘person’ in the holy text of the Old or New Testaments. Therefore ‘person’ should not be used of God.”  {Aquinas: Words for God}

Though it can be said in the bible is talked about God as if it is a person and as such we may find for example the Bible using a whole bunch of metaphors to talk about God:

God hears us (1 John 5:14), even though He doesn’t literally have ears; He sits on His holy throne (Psalm 47:8), even though He doesn’t literally have a booty; and He’s a shepherd (Psalm 23:1), even though He’s never actually been a farmer. {Pseudo-Dionysus: Knowing God?}

The Bible tells us God is an unseen Spirit.

“But my face,” he continued, “you cannot see, because a human being cannot look at me and remain alive.” (Ex 33:20 CJB)

“God is spirit; and worshippers must worship him spiritually and truly.”” (Joh 4:24 CJB)

“Now, “ADONAI”in this text means the Spirit. And where the Spirit of ADONAI is, there is freedom.” (2Co 3:17 CJB)

“So to the King – eternal, imperishable and invisible, the only God there is – let there be honor and glory for ever and ever! Amen.” (1Ti 1:17 CJB)

“By trusting, he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered as one who sees the unseen.” (Heb 11:27 CJB)

People should come to see the existence of God in what the Unseen has provided and allows us to experience. When people are going to look at the Word of God they do have to trans-place themselves to the time of our ancestors and have to try to understand the old way of thinking and the old idioms. That way the words telling about a donkey speaking, a Hand reaching out, we should consider such words telling about what God does or how He moves as an impression of those ancient writers.

Because this language is used as an illustration, and not used literally, there’s a level of active interpretation that goes on as we read. It’s not a matter of just sitting down and reading it and there’s all the meaning – we’ve got to mine away at the text to figure out what’s going on. The language is not transparent, in that sense – it’s rooted in our culture and our concepts and social structures, and digging past all of that is part of what we’re supposed to do. It’s a process that opens up a challenge to certain readings: are we really supposed to read the creation story as literal? That said, the process bites both ways – the liberal assumption that Genesis isn’t literal ought to be taken out and beaten just the same as any hide-bound conservative notion. It should probably be beaten harder, come to think of it.  {Pseudo-Dionysus: Knowing God?}

The Christian theologian and philosopher of the late 5th to early 6th century, Pseudo-Dionysius also known as Pseudo-Denys, who wrote a set of works known as the Corpus Areopagiticum or Corpus Dionysiacum in his Areopagite’s The Mystical Theology finds

God is not to be found in perceivable attributes like colour or weight or shape, because He’s above all of those things – they’re attributes of the physical world, and He is transcendent and divine. In the same vein (Pseudy argues), God is not to be found in concepts:

the Supreme cause of every conceptual thing is not itself conceptual”.

He’s above thought, above knowledge – language itself is entirely unsuitable to talking about God, because our thoughts and words belong to the physical plane, while God is utterly transcendent. Given that line of Neoplatonic thinking, how do we explain away the Bible? {Pseudo-Dionysus: Knowing God?}

Still today there are churches who try to sell God as a person who would have three different or distinct personalities.

When it comes to defining exactly what a person is, we come away a bit stumped, since there really is nothing in creation quite like it. We say “persons” so we are not silent. We know that there is an “I” a “you” and a “he” in the Holy Trinity. We know that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They are distinct and in a relationship of love with one another, for God is love. {God in three persons}

and then they say

It is quite beyond our comprehension. {God in three persons}

As if God wanted to be a God beyond comprehension or to be a God nobody could really understand His position nor His personality. Still today there are lots of preachers who claim that about Jesus one can say

Everything you can say about God you can say about Jesus of Nazareth: Eternal, sovereign, omnipotent, creator and sustainer of the universe, simple, uncreated, everywhere present. {God in three persons}

this should make everybody wonder if this Jesus would be God and would be all-knowing why did he tell he did not know! In case he is everywhere present why was he not there at the place where his close friend Lazarus was ill and died or why he did not manage to be there to comfort Lazarus’ wife and was not there at the funeral.



Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #1

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #2

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #3

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #4

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #5

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #6

Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #7


Further articles to read

  1. The Advent of the saviour to Roman oppression
  2. Politics and power first priority #3 Elevation of Mary and the Holy Spirit
  3. Thanksgivukkah and Advent
  4. Jesus the “God-Man”: Really?
  5. People Seeking for God 4 Biblical terms
  6. Looking for answers on the question Is there a God #2 Pantheon of gods and celebrations
  7. Sayings of Jesus, what to believe and being or not of the devil
  8. Today’s thought “nonsense surrounding the many gods” (July 28)
  9. The Right One to follow and to worship
  10. Best intimate relation to look for
  11. Increased in wisdom in favour with God
  12. Omniscient God opposite a not knowing Jesus
  13. Trinity versus Biblical contradiction
  14. Altered to fit a Trinity
  15. Trinity – behind a false doctrine
  16. Trinity – History
  17. The Trinity matter
  18. The Trinity – the Truth
  19. How did Trinity doctrine develop
  20. Marriage of Jesus 8 Wife of Yahweh
  21. Being Religious and Spiritual 5 Gnostic influences



  1. Some thoughts on the early history of the Trinity
  2. Mystery of the Trinity, Part 1
  3. The Doctrine of the Trinity
  4. The Divine Trinity
  5. Divine Trinity (pt 13)
  6. Trinity, Logic, and the Transcendence of Transcendence
  7. Trinity a false doctrine of a false church
  8. Trinity or unity
  9. God refutes the Trinity doctrine
  10. The Trinity Debate Two Years On
  11. God, Jesus and the Trinity
  12. Remembering Trinity
  13. Who’s In Charge? Meditation on John 6
  14. Hallmarks of the Trinity and God’s Inner Life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
  15. Why we can rejoice in the Trinity
  16. God in three persons
  17. The Restoration Of The Trinity…
  18. God is not male (or female)
  19. How Unitarians Argue Like Atheists
  20. Origen: Athanasian or Arian?
  21. Do Oneness Believers Think Trinitarians Can Be Saved?
  22. Three in ONE
  23. Is There a Possibility that Jesus is Not God?
  24. August 2018 – The Trinity and Church Unity
  25. the Trinity
  26. The Lord our God is one Lord.
  27. The Anti-Trinitarian Argument from Singular Personal Pronouns
  28. Straight Talk… Understanding the Trinity, Rodna Epley
  29. The Light Analogy, Theological Method, and the Doctrine of the Trinity
  30. Little Less Than Divine
  31. Witnessing Tip of the Day July 13 Trinity in Doctrine and Covenants
  32. The Trinity and Worship
  33. A Physicist’s Look at Nature and the Nature of God

12 thoughts on “Trinitarians making their proof for existence of God look ridiculous #8

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.