Square circles and the Trinity, part 4: Steve’s argument
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 under polemics and presentations • 1 comment • read it ⇒In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.
This is part 4 of 4. It dissects the argument Steve makes against the Trinity, showing where it fails and why.
Square circles and the Trinity, part 3: the law of identity
Posted on Thursday, July 3, 2008 under polemics and presentations • 152 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.
This is part 3 of 4. It follows on from the previous discussion of the nature of the Trinity by drawing out its ramifications for our understanding of identity, and how this influences the way in which we can formulate arguments about God.
Square circles and the Trinity, part 2: the nature of the Trinity
Posted on Monday, June 23, 2008 under polemics and presentations • 47 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.
This is part 2 of 4. It argues that although the Trinity appears self-contradictory at first blush, this is due to an unarticulated equivocation in how we describe it. When we carefully work through the nature of God’s being, we find that the square circle is actually a cylinder.
Square circles and the Trinity, part 1: believing contradictions
Posted on Friday, June 20, 2008 under polemics and presentations • no comments • read it ⇒In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.
This is part 1 of 4. It argues that contradictions cannot be believed, nor considered reasonable answers to any questions, and that if the Trinity is self-contradictory it invalidates Christianity as believable and reasonable.