Dw, it's the reader's fault anyway.

Functionally the same word isn't it?

Comma.

Fine, you want an English paper xD

Full stop.

Oh, am I doing it right now?

Oh, should i actually proof read those documents?

Never did. xD

I*

proofread*

> Defeater for the Christian Trinity

Monotheism is understood as saying that everything that is God is identical to God. Important point here is that if they (Christian Trinitarians) wish to deny this they would have to give some reason why since in natural language when we talk about one thing we mean in terms of identity.

If two things are identical then they are indiscernible

Formally this can be said: where f is father and s is son and g is God
1. ∀x [∀y[ x = y ----> Φx <---> Φy](indescirinablity of identity premise)
2. ∀y[ g = y ----> Φg <----> Φy] (monotheism premise)

Christians accept that the father is God and the son is God therefore they should be identical but they also believe the father and son are different persons so they are discernable this will require a very simple identity transivity premise and the discernablity of the father and the son:

3. ∀x [∀y[∀z[ x = y & y = z ---> x = z]]] premise
4. ~(Φf <----> Φs) premise
5. f = g & g = s ----> f = s UI from 3

Now since they are discernible and since a monotheistic God can't not be identical with a monotheistic God they're not a monotheistic God

6. ~(f = s) Modus Tollens from 4 and 1
7. ~ [(f = g) & (g = s)] / Modus Tollens from 5 and 6
8. ~(f = g) v ~( g = s)
Christians do believe that the father is identical with God and that the Son is identical with God

9. (f = g) & (s = g)
But this entails a contradiction
10. (f = g) & (s = g) & ~(f = g) & (s = g)
So it seems if monotheism is true the father and the son both can't be God or it's a contradiction

<:ratdog:572979617267318815>

Take the phi symbol to mean everything that is

Jesus

(Waiting for comments to start a war)

😌🙏

The Holy Trinity, Mathematically Debunked

This relies on acknowledging the precept of "things that are identical are indiscernible" is indisputable, which it isn't.

see: every instance of natural mimicry

I hate it when religious people start to participate though - they flush logic and reason down the toilet the moment it's convenient and just deflect to "faith" or "the bible" (or their holy book of choice - which of course, is just an extension of "faith")

Even if they start to make the semblance of a rational argument, it's better to just ignore them - literally a waste of time, proven time and time and time and time again.

If they were intelligent enough to actually participate in the discussion (and I mean the general discussion about whether supernatural shit exists), they already wouldn't believe whatever bullshit they believe.

Whoever (inevitably) decides to try anyways: do you really think that you're SUCH a good teacher, that in the course of one discussion you can elevate someone's intelligence by 2000 years?

Quite egotistical of you to think you can shatter years of brainwashing and circular reasoning.

Maybe you see it as practice - something to hone your "logic" and "reasoning" abilities? You have to realize that it's cruel though, right? I do, when I do it. It's like torturing severely autistic children with Calculus...

Revel in the cruelty then. Just know what bitter fruits your labor will yield.

If breaking the satanic spell that holds the greater consciousness hostage is considered "evil" then call me Adolf Hitler.

It sounds as though you hold the dogma of science high without considering the basis of all reality; that before any actualization can occur, there must first be a desire for the object/outcome, and the will to complete the task that will provide your desired outcome. Based on that one precept, God must exist before anything else can, as anything that exists had to have a prerequisite desire and willpower for it to actualize within reality. Without accounting for those universal prerequisites, there can be nothing more than supposition on the nature of reality.

Absolute nonsense. Like I said - torturing autistic children with Calculus.

I guess this sort of philosophy is too high IQ for the layman. I recommend reading the Kybalion and Mind Power: Secrets of Mental Magic to better understand the concepts at play here.

But to simplify the concept even further; before *anything* can happen, there must *first* be a desire *for that thing* to exist, before it can *actually* exist.

So before the whole of reality was created, something or *someone* needed to have desired it.

And that *someone* is the Lord God.

Ergo the whole of reality and everything you understand is underpinned by God's desire.

This isn't debatable, it's the logical beginning to any sort of argument that could ever be made. Without acknowledging this basic fact, you will never, *ever* be able to form a coherent argument for anything.

GG @Fuskand, you just advanced to level 1!

Why does existence require desire?

Because before you do anything you need to desire it to happen. It's the process of actualization.

the universe doesn't operate under the same limits of human will and body. There's a quasar right now shooting hundreds of trillions of gallons of water from a collision with another celestial body, and nothing more causes that than the trajectory both were following.