  |
|
Metamath
|
 Three Bags Full Sir! You may have indeed noticed the rather ambiguous section title of 'Aftermath'. The idea of this section is to lay out some principles for precisely what would constitute the Holy Trinity. There must be some mechanism which would allow three individuals to exist in order to declare a Godhead of three individuals, if there is some clarity to be found in the "Trinitarian" belief. From earlier principles, each must contain perfect knowledge of reality as well as each other, but also be able to find in the others a mechanism by which they can conceive their own existence in the personality of the others, as greater and more perfect than their own knowledge of themselves. We conceive by Anselm's argument a being found greater in having existence, or being necessarily existent. Since God has perfect knowledge, he may not by virtue of his necessity know his non-existence as fact or mere possibility. He would, conceive his non-existence as impossible. If we can know a better way by our belief in God, then why can't God know likewise if he is immutably and eternally responsible for his own existence? God, with perfect knowledge of himself, and therefore us, would not be gratified by our worship if he is responsible for all of our experience of Him. But that which we are, contingent and imperfect could not birth the existence of God and understand his being in the way, for instance another God could. That God could find a state of mind in which he could conceive of his own existence as greater than he could himself alone is apparently inconsistent. The argument that in him is all or indeed infinite potentiality for creativity is not enough, if he is unable to conceive his own existence beyond himself in a manner only understood by perfect mind. To a lone God, he would know that all he is or ever was, is "himself forever" even with all such creative potential. If God could yet conceive his existence where we would, an outer 'being' or in the mind of another God, he is without mincing terms, indeed glorified. Likewise by symmetry we expect the reciprocation between "Gods" in like manner. To prevent the simple mirror reflection, one could imagine that each know the other whilst existing in an identical fashion. If each is all and the other, they would be simple reflections. They must needs be similar by existing, but of course, unlimited potential requires no bounds as to the state of each individual, much like any example of 'twins'. We could consider the difference of state with regards to the 'Bungee Leap' concept as simply a separation by interval of time. However, the God who knows his own potential perfectly would not be conceiving himself unless he is in 'both places'. Such conception would require cause and effect, as the work of one individual and not a limitation on God's own potential by virtue of possible paradox. We are either at Bungee, or Trinity; Individuality must be conceived within two of the trinity from each other... In order for each to exist there must be some relation, that each is capable of the other's deeds and potential and not greater than the combined effort of the two, which would render their relationship "God", negating their sole ability to be as Anselm put 'Greatest.' As the next section moves on to the structure of Anselm's argument, as well as the many ontological counter arguments, we will return to this three bags problem, and see whether it sheds light on the nature of God's existence. |
 |
|
