The Trinity/Binity, Part 7: Failed Logic of the Trinity

Many seem to come to the erroneous conclusion that because they can apprehend the Trinity that it is somehow special knowledge or that they themselves are special. The problem is not that those who do not believe it cannot grasp what Trinitarians are saying. Almost all people have the capacity to overlap contradictory concepts without ever resolving them and that is the case here. Being able to apprehend contradictions is not the same as resolving those contradictions. So long as contradictions exist, whether in a mathematical formula or otherwise, it is bad logic.

Theologians recognize these issues with the logic of the Trinity and simply conclude that God, the maker of the laws of the universe, is beyond logic because "logic" is his creation. However, God is omniscient, but that does not mean he can any more make sense of unresolved overlapping concepts than those he granted to be in his image. If it does not make sense to us, it likely does not make sense to God any more than God would accept that 2 + 2 = 25,309. God is not the inventor of logic any more than he is the inventor of knowledge. Logic is not a created thing any more than God is a created thing, any more than the capacity of knowledge is a created thing. As computers have shown us, logic is simply the distinction between what exists and what does not exist — true and false — a binary concept and nothing more. Logic is perfect and God’s thoughts are the perfect expression of logic.

So the following subheadings merely highlight the flaws in the so-called logic that theologians simply wave off with many words and explanations without ever resolving the conflict between logic and non-logic. Logic is what our brains shout to us when something does or does not make sense, whereas non-logic is simply our mind accepting what it cannot immediately resolve. It is a capacity of the mind and not a symptom of imperceptible logic, for all logic is perceivable by the very nature of its being logic. People often confuse non-logic for their minds being blown. If your brain cannot make the connection, then it is not logical, and if it is not logical, it is not from God.

Just because we are incapable of reproducing God’s thoughts, (Romans 11:33 ^_[par|int]) because we are incapable of flawless logic, does not mean we cannot understand the logic once he reveals it. It is simply that his logic is so flawless that we can never hope to achieve it on our own with our limited minds. Thus, we could, for instance, never come to the understanding of love by logic alone, which is why he gave us a natural capacity for love, but for those whom he has shown how to love in a principled way, it is not beyond their logic to understand, control and apply in a godly way.

At the same time, just because something cannot be understood does not mean it is illogical, as it may have many logical components that we do not yet know, and that is the way with God. But the Trinity/Binity lacks any possible logical connection that could bridge the gap between contradictory overlapping concepts. When applying logic, the unresolved contradictions of the Trinity are identified as both "false" (for its having no true analog) and "invalid" (because it cannot be resolved). In the following subheadings I show that the attempts at analogy by Trinitarians are all fundamentally flawed.

Wholly Flawed

Trinitarians claim that Jesus is "wholly God and wholly human". This is some seriously flawed math.

To say that Jesus was "wholly God and wholly man" is to say that God is finite, which contradicts the scriptures. If God is infinite, then he cannot be both the infinite God and the finite "man" because by his virtue of his being infinite, he cannot be finite and visa versa. He can only be one or the other, not both. Only someone finite can die, therefore, God being infinite, cannot die, and therefore never experienced death for all men. (Hab 1:12 ^_[pa|in]; Heb 2:9 ^_[pa|in])

If Jesus is "wholly God" then he, by definition of "wholes" cannot be "wholly human". And if Jesus was "wholly human", then he, by definition of "wholes", cannot be "wholly God". A "whole" means the whole thing. Two wholes equal 2 things. If he were both "wholly God and wholly human", then he would be two separate people and therefore not one being or a Binity, but two separate beings. Two parts of a whole are two halves, not 2 wholes. Therefore Jesus cannot be both "wholly God and wholly human", especially since he is no more than 1/3rd of God, or by Tertulian’s reconing, 1/2 of God.

To explain this contradiction away, some use the scripture saying that "with God all things are possible" (Mt 19:26 ^_[pa|in]) but overlook the scripture that says, "God cannot lie". Thus, when it says, "with God all things are possible", it means it in a special sense, not in every sense. The discussion at Matthew 19:16-26 ^_[pa|in] was about salvation and the efforts required. Thus, no effort to achieve salvation is beyond God’s reach. This does not mean that God is not limited by other things not related to salvation, for if it requires power, there is nothing beyond God’s power, but it is impossible to both live and die at the same time, as death is the secession of life. This requires no power, but is a matter of definition about what exists and what ceases to exist.

Unresolved Quarks

There is a theory that has been proposed that the Trinity can be explained through quantum mechanics. However, here’s the problem: "The heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain [God]." (1Ki 8:27 ^_[pa|in]; 2Ch 6:18 ^_[pa|in]) So whether physical or spiritual, the heavens and the heaven of the heavens, what is described as God’s own spiritual abode, cannot contain him. God is not a created being, therefore he cannot be explained by any kind of physics, except by this absolute: God is infinite and therefore cannot die. (Hab 1:12 ^_[pa|in])

To reconcile two different concepts that seem contradictory, it must ultimately be compatible in some way. For example, if I say that a quark is both a particle and a wave, these are contradictory concepts, but it is reconciled by the fact that it is a particle that acts like a wave, (dubbed a "wavicle",) like an impostor, like a con man pretending to be a police man. Thus, the quark solution retains the original problem when applied to the Trinity: there is no point at which the Trinity resolves the conflict of 3 things existing simultaneously as one thing or one thing existing simultaneously as 3. Additionally, what is infinite cannot be divided into 3 parts. (See Wholly Flawed above and Multiplying Errors below.)

An Opposed Diagram

One explanation uses an oppositional diagram in a way that any logic professor will tell you is fundamentally flawed. An oppositional diagram is meant to express relationships between concepts that are not the same and is typically expressed as either a square or a hexagon. For example:

Diagram by Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Oppositional diagrams cannot exist as 3-pointed. (That is actually a fundamental teaching in critical thinking.) But that is exactly what the Trinitarian oppositional diagram is. What it is actually doing, though, is overlapping the modal Trinity relationship (Venn) diagram that merges the 3 with a tritheistc relationship (Venn) diagram that establishes the 3 as not overlapping.

For example, if I said that eggs are ice cream, I would be wrong, but if I said "eggs, milk and sugar are ’ingredients’ of ice cream", I would be correct, but that would no longer be expressed as an oppositional diagram, but as a family diagram. However, the idea that Trinitarians are trying to convey is not that eggs, milk and sugar make up ice cream, but that eggs, milk and sugar are each ice cream. Neither the whole is equal to its parts, nor are the parts equal to each other or to the whole.

This diagram could only demonstrate where a concept fails. "Is" and "is not" are absolute contradictions. Something that exists cannot also not exist. One either "is" or "is not". If the Father is the true God but is not the Son, then the Son is not the true God. That is incontrovertible logic.

Spoke Out of Turn

The Trinity’s scutum fidei diagram (See An Opposed Diagram above,) has been compared to a wagon wheel with 3 spokes. The problem is that the wheel cannot exist without the spokes, but the spokes can exist without the wheel. Thus, the example is tritheistic. The wheel depends upon the spokes, but the spokes do not depend upon the wheel. If, however, you have a wheel that does not need the spokes, but it has spokes anyway, then those spokes are just a façade, thus tri-modal. Once again, you can’t have it both ways.

No Leg to Stand On

The scutum fidei has also been likened to a 3-legged stool with crossbars. One problem with this analogy is that a relationship diagram expresses relationships that exist. Thus, the crossbars do not actually exist because they would actually better represent the oppositional forces from pressure applied downward on the stool, forcing the legs away from each other. The so-called "crossbars" of the scutum fidei diagram show that the relationship of the three legs contradict each other, rather than being related to and strengthening each other as a crossbar is actually supposed to do.

Additionally, if the 3 legs are not carved as one solid piece with the seat (Modalism), then they are grafted in. (Tritheism) There is no in-between option. It either is or it is not.

A Venncible Diagram

Then there is the Venn diagram in which the Father, Son and holy spirit overlap at the space known as "God". However, a Venn diagram is not about relating oneness, but about relating relationships. That is, to say that a son, a father, and a bird all have God in common is to say that they were each created by God or that they each give glory to God or have some other common relationship with God. It does not express any logic in regard to being. For example, I have muscles, bones and a human brain, therefore I am possibly human. But to say that a father, a son and a bird are "God" is to come to a conclusion removed from any contributing factors. God can be at the center of that as each has a relationship to one called "God" and each have been called "god" or "God" for various reasons. But the diagram alone is incapable of demonstrating anything about their relationship to each other.

Now, if I say "father God", "son God" and "holy spirit God", with their connection being "God", then I have only established that they all 3 share the qualities of being "Gods", not that they are the one and only true God, Jehovah. However, to say that Father God is intellect, Son God is flesh and holy spirit God is spirit, then it makes sense as long as those 3 things do not act independently, just like a person has a mind, a body and spirit, but those 3 do not act independently in any way. A detective can say that 3 clues brings her to the conclusion that a particular person committed the crime in question, but those 3 clues are not that person though they may be affected by that person. Thus a fourth circle would be needed to surround the diagram that establishes what their relationship means, and still it would prove nothing.

The problem is that it is impossible to reconcile the modalism (Also called avatars) of God expressed in three persons with the pluralism (tritheism/polytheism) of 3 distinct persons in a "God". If we say "God acts like 3 persons," then it is modalism and he never actually died as Christ. If we say that "3 persons act like God", then it is pluralism and we are being deceived, making "God" a liar. The problem is merely muddled if we try to say "’God in 3’ acts like ’3 in God’" or "’3 in God’ act like ’God in 3’"; the first is still modal and the latter is still plural and both are still a lie because they are just pretending be ("acts like") what they are not.

Additionally, the Scriptures say that the Father is a spirit, (Joh 4:23, 24 ^_[pa|in]), but nowhere do the Scriptures say that God is the Son or that the spirit is the Son. Additionally, the Scriptures say that Jesus became "a life-giving spirit", so now all 3, the Father, the Son and the holy spirit are labeled "spirits", so relating them as 3 parts of a whole no longer holds, because now they are 3 separate spirits. If you make them 1 spirit, then they are not 3 because that spirit is the control node.

There is no point at which the 3 can be clearly diagrammed as being the same person.

Multiplying Errors

The Trinity is often explained by Trinitarians as the equation: 1x1x1 just because it balances out to 1, but this conveniently ignores the fact that we’re talking about distinct personages; God is not a binary integer. Also, it ignores the fact of what is being multiplied. This equation is to multiply the single number by itself. You are saying that George x George x George = George. Of course it equals George, because it’s all George times himself. When you multiply George by George, you will get nothing more than George. So it would not be to say the Father x the Son x holy spirit = God, but to say that the Father x the Father x the Father = the Father.

Thus, in order for the equation to be accurate, the equation they are using would actually appear as F x S x hs, because they are not each the number 1, but are each unique personages. Because of this, the equation does not compute. If it did, the equation would treat each personage as a distinct complex number greater than 1. F would thereby become greater by multiplying it by S. F x S would become greater by multiplying it times hs. In other words, the whole would become substantially greater than the sum of its parts just like 8 x 8 x 8 equals 512 instead of 8 or 24. Likewise F + S + hs would be FShs, thus it remains to be three distinct personages, or else together they would make up a fourth distinct personage not defined in Scripture, which some nominal Christian sects claim.

Now, here’s the real matter, as I explained to some extent in the subheading "The Non-Infinite God Pie" in Part 6: Non-modalist Non-tritheism or Tri-modalism? God is infinite, (Ps 90:2 ^_[pa|in]; 1Ki 8:37 ^_[pa|in]) and when you deduct any number from something that is infinite (_∞), the _∞ remains _∞, (Reading as _∞ - 1) and the deducted number is finite. And if the finite number is added back to the _∞, the _∞ remains the same. It is simply _∞. No matter whether you add, subtract, multiply or divide, the number is always _∞. But from it you may create any number you choose. Thus, Jesus could be created from the infinite. However, he cannot be _∞ because there can be only one _∞. You cannot split off _∞ from _∞ any more than you can split off 1 from 1 or 3 million from 3 million.

Thus, Jesus was made finite and separate. He could neither share nor maintain consciousness or knowledge of the infinite. (Mt 24:36 ^_[pa|in]; Joh 5:19, 20 ^_[pa|in]) And being at some point separated from the infinite, he was at some point created. If he were to rejoin the infinite, he would not become a conscious part of the infinite any more than 3 could remain 3 when rejoined to the infinite, but would cease to exist as a distinct consciousness and his value as a promise of eternal life would be nullified. 1 + 1 + 1 cannot equal _∞. 1 x 1 x 1 cannot equal _∞. Infinity simply cannot be divided into equal parts. That is why Jesus will be "living forever and ever" (Re 1:17-18 ^_[pa|in]) because he will never be uncreated or cease to exist, and not because he is infinite, but because of the promise of God. In fact, we have all been promised everlasting life, (Ps 37:27-29 ^_[pa|in]) so are we to assume that we are all infinite because of that? Of course not. We, like Jesus, will continue because God is infinite, not because we are.

A Chemical Breakdown

One more way people try to analogize the Trinity is by comparing it to the three states of water: vapor, liquid and ice. Just like the problem with the Venn diagram and God existing in mind, body and spirit, there is the fact that we were made in the image of God and we do not exist in 3 states simultaneously with 3 separate personalities or consciousnesses. Neither can a water molecule exist in 3 states simultaneously. Also, the 3 states here are not contributory to water, but water is contributory to the 3 states. (It remains to be the same molecule, but arranged into one of 3 states, thus modal; in fact, Sabellian modalism.) But the Trinity, in addition to the whole contributing to the 3 states, calls upon the 3 states to be contributory to the whole, which does not, and cannot happen with water.

The Fragile Egg

In a metaphysical (ontological) explanation, the egg in the shell comparison explains that the yolk, the white and the shell each play a part in considering the whole thing an egg. But this fails for the fact that it is simply saying nothing more than what the Trinity states, that they are 3-in-1, but it proves nothing logically. Thus, it is simply begging the question. To go beyond that would be to begin comparing relationships, so then it would begin falling apart, because the yolk is within the white within the shell, which no such relationship is implied between the Father, Son and the holy spirit in the Scriptures, but then the Trinity isn’t related in the Scriptures either, so who could say that it is not apt to its description?

But the fact is that the yolk is not the white and both are only being contained in the shell. You could separate each of them and they would each retain the whole of their make-up and function, each performs a different function, and what about the fetus? The fetus is not the yolk, the white or the shell. The fetus feeds on the yolk until it is consumed and then both the white and the shell are discarded. Thus the egg analogy only expresses tritheism.

Clover-failed

St. Patrick is said to have used a clover, a pagan symbol of good luck, to explain the Trinity. In his explanation, each leaf represents a different member of the Trinity. This appears to be a crystal clear explanation of the Trinity, but is it really? Note that the 3 remain attached at the stem. Is it a three-headed God? It is easy to make 3 clay figures stand up from a single lump of clay, but they still remain to be a single lump of clay. Therefore the single lump of clay is expressing itself in 3 figures, thus it is clearly a tri-modal representation. Therefore the clover example is also tri-modal. Also, unless deformed and defective, thereby imperfect, the clover’s 3 leaves are equal in all ways. So the idea of one having greatest authority and another having least authority is not expressed by a perfect clover, nor does it make any sense in a tri-modal expression.

False Color

The Trinity can be compared to the primary colors and brown. Brown is compared to God, but it is made up of Red, Blue and Yellow, just like God is made up of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There’s just one problem with this analogy. Brown does not exist unless blue, red and yellow come together to make brown, but those colors can exist without brown. Thus, God becomes the construct between 3 separate beings. Therefore, God would not be 1 God, but 3 gods modularly forming a 4th God. For it is said that brown is a different color. Again, if God is expressed in 3, (Prismic defraction) it is modal, but if it is 3 expressed in God, (Color wheel) it is tritheistic. There is no third option.


There is just no logical argument that can support the Trinity in any way, shape or form. Again, this proves that they must either accept that God is modal (tri-modal), and therefore could not have given up his own life by any stretch of the imagination, therefore disproving itself, or they must accept that Jesus is not God. This is why we can only ever attack a modal expression of the Trinity, because the claim that all 3 are God while also separate is completely and irreconcilably impossible, physically, spiritually and mentally, without being 3 separate and finite gods (tritheistic) or else modal.

Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series

Go back to Part 6: Non-modalist Non-tritheism or Tri-modalism?

Go to Part 8: Evidence That Jesus is the Archangel