The fallacies of Dr William Lane Craig’s argument for the Trinity

williamlanecraig

‘As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God.As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as Unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the Unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any Unitarian doctrine of God’.

– Dr William Lane Craig

“As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being.” – Dr William Lane Craig

William starts off by asserting that God is ‘perfect’ without explaining what ‘Perfection’ means. He then jumps to asserting that a perfect being must be a loving being. The ‘bridge’ he used to connect both ideas was ‘love is a moral perfection’. Here lies the first fallacy of his argument.

Merely possessing love, is not a moral perfection in of itself, because love is just an emotion and even a greedy person possesses love (i.e. love for money). Furthermore, love only becomes incumbent on us because we are created, and our creator ordained upon us that we should love each other as a worship of Him. Since God does not worship anything (since he is God, the only), he is not subject to morals, but rather, he defines the morals which others must follow according to his will.

Furthermore, God is no more ‘likely’ to possess the attribute of ‘loving’ as he would possess the attribute of hating.

How does Dr Craig know that God is not the perfect hating being? Dr Craig would probably retort ‘but what need would God have to hate if he has no rival?’, thus the same could be said of love.

The Love between people is merely the manifestation of the human species bonding instinct, which normally moves us to have compassion with our fellow human being (and anthropomorphised pet!). God is not part of a genus of species that requires him to possess an instinct which bonds him with other gods – this is because God is unique and the only one, and more importantly, he is not created.

So on pure rational observation, we cannot say God possesses love, since we cannot know God’s chosen characteristics devoid of observing them directly ourselves, thus we must rely on Revelation to inform us. If we accept (what we believe to be) revelation, then revelation tells us, both the Torah, Bible and the Quran, that God loves good deeds and sincere worshippers and he hates sins and iniquitous people. This is because there cannot be an equal to God, but there can be those who possess will, who make created things ‘equal’ to God. Thus God loves those who affirm him as alone and unique – the absolute one, and God hates those who assign partners to himself. Finally, there lies no reference to him loving himself anywhere in the Torah, Gospel or Quran, thus this argument is moot from its first premise. In conclusion, we cannot make assumptions about God’s characteristics without revelation.

“Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another” – Dr William Lane Craig

Even though the premise of this argument is flawed, we shall humour it and critique the next premise it sprouts. William here now defines the emotion of love as ‘very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centring wholly in oneself’. Mr Craig now compounds his original logical fallacy with a psychological inaccuracy. Love is based (like most human emotions) around the self -thus an individual seeks to be loved rather than just ‘give themselves away’. If Mr Craig is suggesting that love’s nature is only to ‘give oneself away’, then it should be sufficient for someone to merely love a girl he has a crush on and not require to have it reciprocated, perhaps Mr Craig denies the existence of unrequited love?

Furthermore, to say that God possesses an attribute that “by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another.”, is to claim that God is IN NEED of something else other than his (absolutely indivisible) self. God cannot be in need to do anything, as he is uncreated and independent. Thus he possesses no innate desires, instincts or motivations that CAUSE him to do actions. For if he were to possess instincts, natures or desires that are intrinsically part of himself, the question would arise as to ‘who created those causes that cause the first cause (i.e. God)?’

The correct and rational conclusion, is that God possesses no needs or any kind, because he has no ‘nature’ or instincts that motivate him to do actions (i.e. are a first cause before himself). Thus God is not a creature which is moved by its own nature; rather God does not have a defined nature, since no one defined him. But rather, he defines his will by whatever he pleases.

Thus, both of Dr Craig’s logical premises have been blown out of the water, but we shall humour his next premises still.

“But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create.” – Dr William Lane Craig

To love and to create are both actions. Why is Dr Craig saying that God’s ‘desire’ to create is any less part of his nature than his ‘desire’ to love? Furthermore, does God not have a choice when it comes to who he loves? Is God COMPELLED to love? Is love then stronger than God, of whom God is merely just a servant?! No, God does whatever he wills under no compulsion, his act of loving is just an action, which is not more different than his act of creation.

“So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.” – Dr William Lane Craig

The false premises just pour of this statement by William. Firstly, God knew all of his creation before he created it, would it be not possible for God to love his creation from all eternity even though it hadn’t existed yet? Surely if William had read his Old testament, he would have found the verse where God is reported to have said to Prophet Jeremiah:

‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.’

Jeremiah 1:5

‘When I (David) was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.’

Psalm 139:13-16

God exists outside time and space, for him, there is no before, present or after, so he had always loved his deserved amongst creation and always hated the undeserving amongst his creation. How narrow of Dr Craig to have limited God’s knowledge and timelessness so.

The second problem which arises for Dr Craig’s statement is if God is always the ‘perfectly loving’, and loved before he initiated creation, then was God always ‘The creator’? Was there a point where he was not the creator? Can he change his roles over time? Is he even subject to change, or time for that matter?! To say God is limited in his actions, perceptions or roles by time is to ensnare your concept of God in time. God was always the ‘loving’ for the same reason he was always the ‘creator’, because of his foreknowledge and in-contingent potential ‘before’ the existence of creation.

Furthermore, Craig’s statement: “It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be INTERNAL to God HIMSELF.” contradicts his early statement regarding his definition of love: “Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to ANOTHER PERSON rather than centring wholly in ONESELF. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving HIMSELF in love to ANOTHER.”

If Love requires another, then God cannot love himself, rather he requires another, who according to Dr Craig, must be eternal in order to ‘keep up’. Thus what we have arrived at is the best argument for polytheism I have ever heard (‘best’ being a relative term, also employed in the phrase ‘best of the worst’). For what Dr Craig has unwittingly proposed, is that there must exist an eternal being, external to God, whom God ‘needs’ to love. If William were to say that God can love himself, then his first basis, that their must be ‘another’ for God to ‘give himself to’, is effectively undermined.

Unfortunately for William, inconsistency within his own argument makes for a very poor argument. This is only made worse when the implications of his argument are not only inconsistent with reason, but are a poor attempt to defend an inconsistent doctrine, which itself is based upon an inconsistent interpretation of an internally inconsistent book derived from originally inconsistent sources. The only consistency present in all of this matter is its regular inconsistency. But once again let us humour the premises and continue our deliberations with Dr Craig’s conclusion.

“In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as Unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the Unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any Unitarian doctrine of God.” – Dr William Lane Craig

Dr Craig asserts, self-destructively, that the Unitarian God is unable to ‘give himself away to another’, and therefore ‘cannot be the most perfect being’, and that only a triad of ‘persons’ in a trinity are the ones who can achieve such a ‘giving away to another’

The most fundamental problem with this conclusion, is not just that Dr Craig denies god can love his creation before he made it, and not on the nature of what love is, but also, interestingly enough, on who God needs to love. Craig says that if God only loves himself, then he is not a ‘perfect being’, but Craig’s Trinitarian doctrine attests that the trinity’s ‘persons’ are all part of God and not separate from his being, thus they do not constitute a ‘OTHER’ to the being of God. Thus, Dr Craig has fell into his own trap, for if he claims that God loves himself, then he admits that his conception of God too, cannot be the ‘perfect being’ as well. The alternative is for Dr Craig to say the trinity is, in reality, a pantheon of three Gods who love eachother as a relationship between separate beings, and therefore also able to satisfy the (Dr Craig’s) criteria of love, which demands that God love ‘an-OTHER’.

If Dr Craig were to argue that there is love between the ‘persons’ of the trinity within God’s being, but not without, then, according to his logic, the persons maybe individually ‘perfectly loving’ to eachother, but collectively as God, they will not be perfectly loving, since God as a ‘whole’ (!) is not loving another, but merely himself. Although I really don’t understand why Craig’s anthropomorphised God cannot be Unitarian and still love itself, when even human beings can love themselves! But I guess Craig’s concept of God cannot do something a ordinary human can.

Thus, Craig will have become stuck on the contradictory nature of the Trinity fallacy, and he will have no other recourse than to exclaim that his premise, a God who cannot love himself while at the same time be the ‘perfect loving being’, CAN in fact love himself and still be the ‘perfect loving being’ without any contradictions. Once again, the trinitarians, in their desparate attempt to find explanations for contradictory doctrines, have created more contradictions then they solve. Perhaps Craig shall have to explain that his argument is correct but that the reason we don’t understand it is because it is a great mystery.

How anyone can think Dr Craig’s argument is plausible is indeed a great mystery.

Abdullah al Andalusi



Categories: ARTICLES, Christianity, The Muslim Debate Initiative, WRITINGS

Tags: ,

19 replies

  1. MashaAllah good response, brother Abdullah. Have you forwarded this to Dr. William Lane Craig. You can do that via his website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ hopefully he will respond to you : )

    Having watched a number of his debates with Muslims, the biggest distortion and misrepresentation by Dr. Craig is that the “God of Islam” is not a loving God but his “God” is. He goes on to define what he thinks loving should be and how that should be done by God – erm, anyone can do that – provide their own opinion – it does not make it a fact or reality – that’s the problem with philosophers as him: Dr. Craig does not base his reasoning and evidences from his own scripture, The Bible. Shockingly the two thing he holds dear to, along with his fellow Christians 1) The Bible and 2) The Trinity are not even mentioned directly, concretely and clearly in The Bible! For a man who possesses so many degrees and claims to have so much knowledge, the foundation of his beliefs fail on the most basic criteria, so embarrassing it does even satisfy at kindergarten/primary school level!

    Brother, have a debate with Dr.Craig and show him his reasoning and conclusions are flawed and Islam is rational; if he is a sincere philosopher and a believer in God, he has to embrace the true religion of all the prophets, “Submitting to the will of God” (i.e. Islam).

    May Allah reward you for striving in dawah, and keep increasing you in knowledge and wisdom,
    Abu Maryam

    • if one thinks about it each person is giving deformed love to the other persons. each is not 100 % “divine nature” so how is it giving “divine love” fully to the other? there must be deficiency in it’s giving to the other

      where is love coming from when each person is less than “one god” ?

      is it one consciousness loving ANOTHER consciousness using a nature which is shared ? two human minds using one body? so is it one body loving itself?

  2. I always find it strange that these Christians will use great logic arguing for the existence of God, and when analyzing the doctrines of the incarnation and trinity, Logic goes out the window.

    • Only false christians. We Jehovah’s Witnessess don´t believe in trinity or incarnation or hellfire. We believe in God as a unique being and that the soul IS the person, not something the person has. All these false doctrines were developed since paganism was mixed with christianism.

  3. I love how Christians pull out the “incomprehensible mystery card” only when it’s convenient for them. Would they except “it’s a mystery” from a muslim when arguing that the islamic God “unjust”, Muslims don’t supply such a weak and pathetic answer, and if they were to not accept this as an answer, then to be consistent, they should not say that “its a mystery” is an acceptable answer.

    It’s actually a little strange, that some Christians are actually quite vicious when arguing for the trinity, and have no problem insulting a Unitarian God, a little disturbing if you ask me. Actually Come to think of it, it sort of reminds me of the way atheists behave when arguing, trinitarians become very hostile, inconsistent, emotional etc.

  4. From what I understood in his speeches and articles, it seems Craig maintains that the only way that God can love from eternity is if someone was with him to love from eternity (hence God is a plurality of persons).

    If we agree with this for sake of argument, it doesn’t necessarily make the Trinity the most plausible doctrine because:

    1. In order for God to love from eternity, there doesn’t have to be 3 persons under the Godhead. At minimum, there would have to be 2 persons in order for God to love from eternity. Hence, it doesn’t follow that the Trinity is the most plausible doctrine (assuming that the only way that God can love from eternity is if someone was with him from eternity).

    2. If the only way that God can love from eternity is if someone was with him to love from eternity, according to the same logic, the only way that God can forgive from eternity is if someone was with him from eternity, for him to forgive. The would contradict the Trinity, which teaches that each person under the Godhead is free from sin, thus cannot be forgiven. Christians might retort by saying: “there’s no evidence that the only way that God can forgive from eternity is if someone was with him from eternity to forgive, hence, we shouldn’t believe this”. The response would be: “similarly, there’s no evidence that the only way that God can love from eternity is if someone was with him from eternity to love, hence, you shouldn’t believe this”.

  5. Thank you for your comments. I have to say that I have found your rendering of Craig’s arguments confused. Moreover, from my reading of Islamic metaphysics, being primarily Neoplotinian, I don’t think you are in line with what has generally been maintained.

    Firstly, tou’ve argued: “Thus, Dr Craig has fell into his own trap, for if he claims that God loves himself, then he admits that his conception of God too, cannot be the ‘perfect being’ as well.” This is simply mistaken. Craig maintains that God’s love is relational, in that God’s love is distinguishable by virtue of the Persons of the Trinity and not the essence of the Trinity. What you’ve argued simply confuses the distinction between essence and personhood.

    Further, you’ve argued: “So on pure rational observation, we cannot say God possesses love, since we cannot know God’s chosen characteristics devoid of observing them directly ourselves, thus we must rely on Revelation to inform us.” I believe this is false. For God being the plenitude of all existence, the sum of all being per se, is as such wholly actually, lacking all potentiality, being therefore wholly loving, just as He is wholly just and merciful. Hence, to argue otherwise suggests that God is substantially deficient in His being, such that moral perfection would be external to Him, implying that God would only be loving be actual by participation. However, I am sure you would agree with me that God is wholly actual, of which would safeguard your view of the identity thesis from multiplicity.

    Nevertheless, various renowned Islamic philosophers, i.e., Mir Husayn Maybudi, alike Athir, Averroes and Avicenna, would agree with Craig and myself. Maybubi argues specifically that there are no ‘anticipated states not yet actualized’ inherent to the Being of God. So I don’t see why you find Craig’s view fallacious when it is the classical view of the Islamic philosophers as well.

  6. relationnelle, quoting “Islamic philosophers” is not evidence that Islam teaches that. Many of these philosophers indulged in ilmul kalam and have deviated from the orthodox position.

    “Hence, to argue otherwise suggests that God is substantially deficient in His being, such that moral perfection would be external to Him, implying that God would only be loving be actual by participation.”

    God can still be perfect without loving everyone. To argue that God necessarily must be loving everyone at all times (which you seem to imply) is speculation. Will the Christian God love those whom he throws into hell forever? Seems like the answer is no, since the Biblical God hates people when they sin (see: Leviticus 20:23, Leviticus 26:30, Romans 9:13, Proverbs 6:16-19). Dr. Craig says in his speeches that people in hell will continue to sin forever. Since the Christian God hates people when they sin and if people will sin forever in hell, that means God will hate those who will sin in hell, forever. Hence, the Christian God isn’t as all-loving as Christians make out.

  7. I do not know how many people have noticed this, but Christianity is in fact very similar to the panentheistic Advaita Hindu philosophies, in that “God” is both inside the Universe and outside of it, as is the case with the “Trinity” and the actions of the “persons” of the Trinity.

    A careful consideration of this matter – how other religions and ideologies in the end posit the unity of all existence while Islam denies it outright – is what, in my opinion, shows the true uniqueness of Islam against other religions and ideologies.

  8. “Hence, to argue otherwise suggests that God is substantially deficient in His being, such that moral perfection would be external to Him, implying that God would only be loving be actual by participation.”

    Morality applies to one who is judged by an outside entity. Who are the Christians alleging in the one who judges “God”?

    Islam to the contrary says that all this talk of “good” and “evil” when applied to God the way people envision it is a huge ontological mistake.

  9. how do we answer christians who say that a co equal, all powerful, and all knowing god is an intermediary for a person in trinity who is of co equal nature ? if neither the father , spirit and ghost has any power loss IF they mediate with each other, then why dont we have the father mediating with the sun? if thier ESSENSE isnt affected by what they do then they can switch roles, right?

    • First, the Christian should define his terms. I do not know what this ‘intermediary’ means in this context. But from what i can see from the above, the Christian is trying to deny non-contradiction and the essential identity of entities, plus he is trying to push ‘exact unity within diversity’ (a small shift of the first fallacy – also used by Hindus in their own theology).

      And it all also comes down to the fallacy that there is an abstract ‘class’ named ‘Godhood’ that so happens to be instantiated by three persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), as if God is some sort of code in computer programming. But we Muslims say that God is not a ‘genus’, from which different instantiations may come forth, and this is the main point of contention we have with them and others who think like them, whatever their religion might be.

  10. The trinity is a relational term that explains God’s essence. What would make the trinity illogical is if three Gods were one God. Or each part was of the same role and essence. However, different roles exist within the Trinity. The Father commands, for example, and the Son obeys, while the Holy Spirit mediates, intercedes, and empowers. Three distinct entities with three distinct roles; all in one being. How can Dr. John be an internist, father, and husband at the same time? Easy, he is one being with different roles. Let’s ask it another way: how could father John, husband John, and internist John all be one person? Basically the same answer: 3 distinct persons in one being. If someone’s blood pressure needed to be lowered, who would do this? Internist John. If a diaper needed to be changed, who would do this? Father John. If a wife wanted a romantic night, who would do this? Husband John. Physically, John is one person. So is God. Spiritually, John is one person. So is God. Relationally John is 3 persons—all fully John with distinct roles. So is God. Could internist John change a diaper? You bet; but he wouldn’t—not his role. Could father John take Mrs. John on a date? Of course, but he wouldn’t—not his role. John’s distinct roles make up who he is. Semantics is limiting of course. John could change. He could retire, divorce, or lose his children. But God does not change. He is who He is eternally. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—all one being with three distinct roles.

  11. Why do you speak of Trinitarians as Christians? Every Muslim knows that Jesus was NOT Trinitarian! Therefore Trinitarians are NOT TRUE CHRISTIANS! Distinguish the true Christians from the false!

  12. What amazes me is the sophistry that philosophers like WLC use. It is humorous. He must only be talking to his own audience and to people who DON”T THINK! Abdullah al Andalusi you hit the nail on the head 30 times 30!

    “In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold;”

    They like to point out that wierd religions like Islam and Christian “cults” are the only ones that believe in a unitarian God. Funny that they CONVENIENTLY FORGET Judaisim! Why such a statement would force their audience to think: “Why do we believe God is a Trinity when no other monotheistic religion does–not even Judaism from which we sprang!”

    It is also interesting that religions that believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all cults! WOW! It is one thing to say they are not fully informed, but you go so far as to call them evil and hellbound simply for believing in the simplicity of revealed Scripture! Would not the modest and conservative view be that PURE monotheism is best and ok and that Trinitarianism can also be believed in? Why attack the purists? It is obvious! Trinitarianism is of the DEVIL! It is a deviation from the Truth! If Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc were living today, they would be members of a religious cult!

    On the other hand, can anyone imagine what Moses would have done had someone come to him and said that Jehovah the God of Israel was three persons in one being? Is there a need to answer what would have happened to that person? And further woe be to him had he tried to draw it or make a carved image out of it! (One thing is for certain, if Trinitarans could go back in time, they would not even speak of a Trinity out of fear of death–for they would be like gays!)

    ” rather God is a plurality of persons, as the [apostate] Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms.”

    God is not a board of directors! Many persons who operate as a unit! In the ancient world, we still called that polytheism!

    Furthermore, if the Trinity is true, then the Trinity will not stay a Trinity for much longer. According to numerous scriptures Jesus has joint-heirs, co-rulers, brothers who will also be called Sons of God. As sons of God and Joint heirs of God, they will be GOD BY NATURE according to Tinitarian doctrine.

    Romans 8:16 says: “16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

    We share in Christ’s glory? Really? We will be co-heirs with Christ,really?

    Romans 8:29 says: “29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.”

    God has brothers? Obviously is Jesus is God and there are joint/co-heirs!

    Romans 8:32 says: “Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things?”

    Now the Christian Scriptures are not teaching heresy. I’m pointing out that if the Trinity were true, Trinitarians have to expand their doctrine beyond 3-triune persons.

    “On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God.As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. ”

    As you acknowledge correctly this argument by Trinitarians is a desperate attempt to justify and make APPEAR MORE PLAUSIBLE that God is a Trinity. Also by saying God needs someone to love means that God is NOT COMPLETE within himself. He NEEDS or RELIES ON OTHERS. that means that EACH of the 3 Persons of the Trinity are incomplete! Imperfect by themselves! Like a husband needs a wife, so also a three beings need each other to complete one another.

    Also can a person be LOVING without showing love? Yes! Once the opportunity presents itself he will show his loving and generous nature. The potential is aways there. There is nothing in scripture that demands that God be LOVING for all eternity past! And saying that God is Love does not mean that continually actualize that quality in some specific way such as loving something else.

    1 Co 4:6 says for us not to go beyond what is written. What WLC has done as with the trinity is built more castles in the sky! The build large with much wind!

    • what make no sense is that if each person is practising love then from where is it getting its love from?
      from divine powers, right?
      so it gives it’s love and then it need to become an object to experience effect of what is emitted on the other?
      that is like me looking in mirror and hearing myself say “i love you” then the mirror throws back ” i love you”

      so i heard myself and saw myself , but they are saying that it is different person, so different person must give some sort of different love in order for one person to experience the effect of the love from the person

      otherswise you have SAME persons throwing love back and forth

      persons give cause and effect.

      but the effects must be different because of different persons otherwise same effect would be like same persons receiving the effect of the love they give.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: