Electrons all share the same fundamental properties. If x shares all the same properties as y and if y shares all the same properties as x then x=y. However, though every electron shares all the same fundamental properties, individual electrons are distinguished by their relations i.e. differences in momentum, position, entanglement, etc. Here we see a real world example of how something can be one in nature, but distinct relationally. It's really not that hard to grasp the notion that something can be one, but also many at the same time. A river is one body of flowing water, but is constituted of individual water particles.
Muslims are low IQ so they have no ability to understand basic concepts in philosophy. Probably because Arabs mixed with blacks from the horn of Africa and, since all blacks have an extremely low IQ, this mixing heavily diminished their IQ.
Modalism again
>>18011187There are many things in the human world that we know were invented by one human or a small group of people who were part of a committee, and whose authority came from being recognized by other humans. The parameters for designing a gear (under the ANSI/AGMA 2001-D04 standard) are one such example. The C++ programming language (under ISO/IEC 14882:1998 standard and its revisions) is another such example. Everybody knows for certain that such standards only have the weight that they do because groups of human beings with power (economic, political, or merely persuasive) have made one another follow such standards and demand that they be subject to auditing and periodically reviewing themsleves to ensure compliance to those standards.On the other hand, the Trinity and other theological concepts sit on a much looser basis because they are meant to be metaphysical truths that are ultimately philosophical in nature, but they have been the cause of political disputes in previous centuries. Since philosophy cannot induce any metaphysical truths from anything else, the only way to accept the Holy Trinity is as an undisputed article of faith, but since it only exists as a primarily verbal conception that has such exact wording that it cannot be interpreted by the means of analogies, it becomes difficult if not impossible to explain the Holy Trinity to anyone who does not already have the sort of mindset required to believe in the Holy Trinity in the first place.
>>18011131>though every electron shares all the same fundamental properties, individual electrons are distinguished by their relationsNow that I think about it, that's tritheism, not modalism.
>>18011195That's not modalism. Modalism explicitly denies distinction within the Godhead as it does not view the persons therein as distinct relations but rather different "masks" which God takes on relative to his creation. OPs analogy is orthodox. The analogy of water being a liquid, gas, and solid is more akin to modalism.
>>18011231Tritheism would posit distinct essential properties for each individual, which OPs analogy does not do. Now I'm not saying the analogy is a perfect representation of the Trinity, but it is better than most.
>>18011187Nigga everyone on planet earth thinks the trinity is retardation except dogmatic trinitarian Christians. Christcucks even had to murder non trinitarian Christians for millennia to keep the doctrine going. This isn't a mudkike criticismt. white atheist
>>18011131>Sure every cock is different but they all have the property of cock so they are all actually part of one big cock, I am sucking God's cockOP is a polytheist huffing cope.
>>18011131The river/water analogy has modalist overtones. The early Fathers explicitly warned against analogies that made the persons into separable “aspects” or “modes” of one divine being, since that reduces the Trinity to a single divine subject merely appearing in different ways.If the concept of the trinity is as easy as you say then why would saying what you just did get you labeled a modalist and burned at the stake?
>>18011409>The river/water analogy has modalist overtones.It does not.
>>18011446"Nuh uh" is not a winning argument to the grand inquisitor. You would be killed by your fellow christians for saying this.
>>18011545You did not show how it is modalism.
>>18011550What would satisfy you?
>>18011131>A river is one body of flowing water, but is constituted of individual water particles.A river is a mass of many water molecules. You could not call a single water molecule, taken on its own, a river.The analogy fails obviously, since the Bible says that each Person of the Holy Trinity is fully God. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9).>However, though every electron shares all the same fundamental properties, individual electrons are distinguished by their relations i.e. differences in momentum, position, entanglement, etc. Here we see a real world example of how something can be one in nature, but distinct relationally.If we assume your statement about electrons is correct, you have still committed a category error.The universal concept of an "electron" is something that is predicated of a particular. Meanwhile, particular real-world electrons that you might point to are NOT predicated. So you've conflated something that is predicated (a universal or platonic form) to something that is not predicated (particular electrons). This is a category error according to Aristotle.It is no different than the classical paradox where someone mistakenly claims that the abstract concept of "bigger" must itself be the biggest thing in existence. That is a category error, and therefore nonsensical, for the same given reason: Particulars (that is, things not predicated) are not rightly conflated with, or directly compared to, a universal concept (i.e. anything which can be predicated of a particular).
>>18011727>A river is a mass of many water molecules. You could not call a single water molecule, taken on its own, a river.>The analogy fails obviously, since the Bible says that each Person of the Holy Trinity is fully God. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9).I did not assert this as an analogy for the Trinity but simply as another example of the way in which something may be one but also many. My claim is that there are many ways in which we can speak of things being both one and many.>The universal concept of an "electron" is something that is predicated of a particular. Meanwhile, particular real-world electrons that you might point to are NOT predicated. So you've conflated something that is predicated (a universal or platonic form) to something that is not predicated (particular electrons). This is a category error according to Aristotle.To the contrary, I did not assert that the substance of the electron is identical with the form of the electron, in fact I highlighted the difference between them when I stated:>However, though every electron shares all the same fundamental properties, individual electrons are distinguished by their relations i.e. differences in momentum, position, entanglement, etc. Electrons share all the same fundamental properties precisely because being an electron is predicated of their particulars. And their particulars are precisely those substances which predicate relations. This is perfectly in keeping with Aristotle's logic/categories, unless I'm missing something.However I also understand that my analogy is not perfectly comparable to the Godhead, since I do not regard the ousia as an abstraction of the relations, but as a truly self subsisting nature. The hypostases instantiate the ousia, but it is not as if they are particulars in the concrete, material sense, as individual electrons might be. This is where I know my analogy fails. I do not claim it to succeed to this extent.
>>18011227Even retards have an easier time understanding mathematics. If you can't explain the trinity to non-believers then it's bs
>>18011752>Electrons share all the same fundamental properties precisely because being an electron is predicated of their particulars.That doesn't mean electrons are one and many at the same time, because when you say "the electron is one" you are referring to the universal, and when you say "there are many electrons" and that they are distinguished by relations, here you are referring to particulars rather than the universal. So, implying that through this example the same thing is "both one and many" is what we call equivocation between the predicated universal (which is singular) and the non-predicated particulars (which are plural), itself a kind of category error.In this case the same thing is not both singular and plural at the same time, rather the universal is singular and the particulars are plural, but they aren't the same thing, and are not even in the same category of thing.This isn't what is asserted by the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine says much more. It is not a case of comparing a universal to particulars, or equivocating between those two categories.It is saying that there are three Persons which each fully embody the one substance of God. The single, triune essence (or substance) of God, AND each of the Persons who are fully God, are standalone and can be referred to. There isn't any way to draw an analogy simply because nothing else is triune. No created thing is triune either, only the uncreated God is triune according to the Bible. There is only this example to refer to, if by divine revelation through the Scriptures, the assertion of the Holy Trinity is accepted, which I do accept.>The hypostases instantiate the ousia, but it is not as if they are particulars in the concrete, material sense, as individual electrons might be. This is where I know my analogy fails. I do not claim it to succeed to this extent.Yeah I agree with this.
>>18011794>So, implying that through this example the same thing is "both one and many" is what we call equivocation between the predicated universal (which is singular) and the non-predicated particulars (which are plural), itself a kind of category error.I am not conflating between primary substance and its form, my point is that individual electrons are one in the sense that they participate in the form, while also being distinct concrete actualizations of it. In this sense, the substances are many in the sense that they are individual concrete things, and we distinguish them because of their relations, and they are one in the sense that they share in the same substantial form. I clearly distinguished between the two without ambiguity and I never made the claim that the universal itself is numerically the same as the particular. Basically, you are straw manning my analogyAgain, I understand that this is not perfectly applicable to the Trinity as the relations in the Godhead are not accidental to it, nevertheless, it serves as a good analogy because electrons are distinguished by their relata even as we distinguish the members of the Trinity by the way in which each hypostasis relates.
>>18011131>>18011227>>18011727>>18011752>>18011829
>>18011845Christianity is all about asserting the approved kinds of propositions. You're a heretic if you think proposition A is true while I think proposition A is false.
>>18011187Enjoy jahannam.
>>18011794>>18011829How do you two expect the average Christian to have any fucking clue what you're discussing?
>>18011131>The Trinity really isn't that hard to graspTrue, but I'm guessing you're about to make a very stupid argument.>ElectronsRight. Stopped reading.
>>18013339I only have a clue because it's what the Bible says.
>>18011187Enjoy the BBC filled cuckhold eternal BNWO paradise full of large black dongs.
