13:35 I don't know if that's a matter of terminology, but even though the Trinity either has to be or isn't (so no "possibility"), couldn't a pagan philosopher claim that it's a possible hypothesis which, if true, would be necessary, but that it cannot be known and thus is "possible" because he doesn't know whether that's true or not?
Wagner: using heretical analogies like the 3 leaf clover is fine if it helps you understand the Trinity Also Wagner: don’t use reason to try and understand the Trinity 😂
Vatican I mentions both, a. The ability for reason, in seeking congruences, to come to a profitable understanding of mysteries of the faith, and b. The inability of reason, from naturally knowable principles, to demonstrate the Trinity. In the video and my paper these are called "opinionate assent" and "scientific assent" respectively. a. "Reason illustrated by faith, when it zealously, piously, and soberly seeks, attains with the help of God some understanding of the mysteries, and that a most profitable one, not only from the analogy of those things which it knows naturally, but also from the connection of the mysteries among themselves and with the last end of man..." b. "By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known." The three-leaf clover isn't a "heretical analogy" anymore than speaking of God as "Our Father" is a "heretical analogy" insofar as we negate the dissimilitude of the analogy and accept it under its proper aspect (as we do with all analogies).
Well my head is always in shambles when I read thomist stuff; can one say it cannot be proven as necessary, but fitting since it is known from the ontological argument God is the most perfect being, and that perfection/goodness makes an eternal "shared love", so to say, since this is what love is, fitting? Also e.g. wonder why a triangle is called "subject" if subjects are usually humans and inanimate things are objects...
Are you going to apply this argument directly to the arguments from any of the philosophers in the thumbnail? I don't get why the fact that the three persons always act together means that we can't know about the the different persons simply using our natural rational faculties. Am I understanding that point correctly? Surely one can imagine God creating the world such that humans have trustworthy reasoning abilities. I don't see why from there someone couldn't correctly reasons that God would be the greatest possible being, and the greatest possible being is a society that can actualize love in its most robust form, as opposed to simply an individual. But this doesn't require any special revelation
To me, it seem's Christian is saying that the knowledge of each person in the trinity is unknowable outside of revelation. This seems to follow generally from the Aquinas quote. It seems extremely intuitive. All things we know of God, regardless of revelation and deduction from that, comes from created things. So you are correct someone could come to reason that God exists, God is perfectly good, etc. Regarding your question I think it is generally bait and switch from Christian. I am glad this video got my attention regardless though. The philosophers above especially Swinburne and WLC really work on "proving" the Trinity post-revelation. So generally never a positive case, more so a response to of questions on what the Trinity looks like according to 'X' metaphysical view. Analytical Theism sadly has left much of the mystery out of there models. Although I think analytic philosophy of religion is sometimes really good.
@@ApodicticScott Thanks. It seems to me that Christian is going from, "God's acts on creation are all committed by each of the three persons equally," to, "one can't come to know God is a Trinity merely through general revelation." I'm confused how he gets from A to B.
@@daman7387it is not only that they act on each thing equally. It is one divine operation, one divine act. There is not an equal contribution by each person. It is on divine act. So if you tried to reason from the effect to distinguish persons from the cause, that is not possible, since there is no such distinction in the act.
@@danieljoyce6199 Ok that is very helpful thank you. Would you be able to provide any more insight into what it means for there to be no distinction of this sort in the act of God? If there were a distinction, what would that look like? I'm also confused as to how this doesn't pose the same problem for revelation. God's act of revealing things is also an aspect of the one divine act, right? So if the argument in the video goes through, wouldn't this make us unable to know the Trinity by revelation either? I think this would help me understand exactly what the video is saying.
So if the trinity cannot be arrived at through the human faculty of reason then is the trinity not of God and is of the enemy because we serve a God of reason as God is not the author of confusion as God is said to be ONE and not merely a one of unity but he is a numerical singularity, THE DIVINE MONAD. Who shares his glory only in and among himself with himself. He is both the source of himself and the offspring of himself as in this way he established his own supremacy and not the supremacy of another or the dominion of another. The flesh he assumed was submitted to his eternal, divine Spirit. He, like the vortex, enfolds itself and feeds itself and functions off of its own power, he being the source of his own being hence the name I Am that was revealed to Moses. He swears by himself because there is no other being other than himself whereby he can swear by.
Your work is phenomenal. Thank you, Christian.
I just have to see the title to know you're right
Never try to prove the godman from reason either might I add
I thought Pythagoras already proved triangles
13:35 I don't know if that's a matter of terminology, but even though the Trinity either has to be or isn't (so no "possibility"), couldn't a pagan philosopher claim that it's a possible hypothesis which, if true, would be necessary, but that it cannot be known and thus is "possible" because he doesn't know whether that's true or not?
We can argue that the Holy Trinity reveals us a lot that makes sense, but that's it.
💯
Imagine trying to figure this out without a Magisterium
The more i learn, the less i kmow...Thanks much for this video.
The first 2 types of knowledge go all the way back to Plato, right?
Great YT title
If this is the case, then we are committed to the position that some necessary truths can only be known a posteriori which seems problematic no?
Dang nice point
Dang nice point
Dang nice point
Dang nice point
The existence of God is a necessary truth that is known a posteriori...
Amen
Wagner: using heretical analogies like the 3 leaf clover is fine if it helps you understand the Trinity
Also Wagner: don’t use reason to try and understand the Trinity
😂
Vatican I mentions both, a. The ability for reason, in seeking congruences, to come to a profitable understanding of mysteries of the faith, and b. The inability of reason, from naturally knowable principles, to demonstrate the Trinity. In the video and my paper these are called "opinionate assent" and "scientific assent" respectively.
a. "Reason illustrated by faith, when it zealously, piously, and soberly seeks, attains with the help of God some understanding of the mysteries, and that a most profitable one, not only from the analogy of those things which it knows naturally, but also from the connection of the mysteries among themselves and with the last end of man..."
b. "By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known."
The three-leaf clover isn't a "heretical analogy" anymore than speaking of God as "Our Father" is a "heretical analogy" insofar as we negate the dissimilitude of the analogy and accept it under its proper aspect (as we do with all analogies).
@@MilitantThomist I’m not reading all that
Well my head is always in shambles when I read thomist stuff; can one say it cannot be proven as necessary, but fitting since it is known from the ontological argument God is the most perfect being, and that perfection/goodness makes an eternal "shared love", so to say, since this is what love is, fitting?
Also e.g. wonder why a triangle is called "subject" if subjects are usually humans and inanimate things are objects...
👌
hey
Thats bait
Are you going to apply this argument directly to the arguments from any of the philosophers in the thumbnail?
I don't get why the fact that the three persons always act together means that we can't know about the the different persons simply using our natural rational faculties. Am I understanding that point correctly? Surely one can imagine God creating the world such that humans have trustworthy reasoning abilities. I don't see why from there someone couldn't correctly reasons that God would be the greatest possible being, and the greatest possible being is a society that can actualize love in its most robust form, as opposed to simply an individual. But this doesn't require any special revelation
To me, it seem's Christian is saying that the knowledge of each person in the trinity is unknowable outside of revelation. This seems to follow generally from the Aquinas quote. It seems extremely intuitive. All things we know of God, regardless of revelation and deduction from that, comes from created things. So you are correct someone could come to reason that God exists, God is perfectly good, etc.
Regarding your question I think it is generally bait and switch from Christian. I am glad this video got my attention regardless though. The philosophers above especially Swinburne and WLC really work on "proving" the Trinity post-revelation. So generally never a positive case, more so a response to of questions on what the Trinity looks like according to 'X' metaphysical view. Analytical Theism sadly has left much of the mystery out of there models. Although I think analytic philosophy of religion is sometimes really good.
@@ApodicticScott Thanks. It seems to me that Christian is going from, "God's acts on creation are all committed by each of the three persons equally," to, "one can't come to know God is a Trinity merely through general revelation." I'm confused how he gets from A to B.
@@daman7387it is not only that they act on each thing equally. It is one divine operation, one divine act. There is not an equal contribution by each person. It is on divine act. So if you tried to reason from the effect to distinguish persons from the cause, that is not possible, since there is no such distinction in the act.
@@danieljoyce6199 Ok that is very helpful thank you. Would you be able to provide any more insight into what it means for there to be no distinction of this sort in the act of God? If there were a distinction, what would that look like?
I'm also confused as to how this doesn't pose the same problem for revelation. God's act of revealing things is also an aspect of the one divine act, right? So if the argument in the video goes through, wouldn't this make us unable to know the Trinity by revelation either? I think this would help me understand exactly what the video is saying.
So if the trinity cannot be arrived at through the human faculty of reason then is the trinity not of God and is of the enemy because we serve a God of reason as God is not the author of confusion as God is said to be ONE and not merely a one of unity but he is a numerical singularity, THE DIVINE MONAD. Who shares his glory only in and among himself with himself. He is both the source of himself and the offspring of himself as in this way he established his own supremacy and not the supremacy of another or the dominion of another. The flesh he assumed was submitted to his eternal, divine Spirit. He, like the vortex, enfolds itself and feeds itself and functions off of its own power, he being the source of his own being hence the name I Am that was revealed to Moses. He swears by himself because there is no other being other than himself whereby he can swear by.
Did you watch the video?
No