greetings woodrow. you make a good point on the matter of non-euclidean geometry and the matter of a flat earth yet this is offsetted by the fact that the factual reality would contradict this wholly theoretical argument. in the same manner does the factual reality of the existence of three in one entities offset the claim that the trinity is illogical. at this point it is no longer even a matter of trying to argue whether this concept is coherent or not seeing as if it were contradictory, examples of such wouldn't exist. contradictions cannot exist in the universe and the fact that examples of a three in one existence are found in the universe removes the trinity from being merely a concept in the realm of ideas but rather a reality present in this world. in hopes of preemptively rebutting an argument in the vein of the above, you will note that in my previous post i wrote:
notice that i spoke both of a logical proof and a factual proof for why oneness means more than simply unitarianism. in the light of the above, an objection on the matter that the argument and/or proof for the coherence of the trinity is merely theoretical (as your bringing up of the proof for the flat earth seemed to imply) cannot be put forward for the christian has 'concrete' examples for the coherence of this doctrine. so once more, in terms of logic, there can be no argument.
( a ) yes, the christian conception is certainly not three attributes of a single entity for then we would have a disaster. the distinctions within the being of god are not to be mistaken for attributes. turning back to our example of space: length, width, and height are not attributes of space per se but rather distinctions within the one space. these distinctions possess in their being all the prerogatives of space (i.e. the attributes). they are the possessors of the attributes of space and not attributes themselves. the same is true of the members of the trinity. the attributes of god are omnipotence, aseity, omniscience, omnipresence (though you would disagree with this one), omni-benevolence, omnisapience et cetera. neither are these persons separate but rather distinct. since they all subsist within the single being of god neither can actually be separate from the other (for none can somehow divest himself of the divine essence which is what is needed for them to be separate). once again i bring up the example of space because when we keep these explanations 'concrete' we find that the doctrine is without reproach: length, width, height are not separate but rather distinct--these three exist within the being of space and can no more cease being the one true space than to cease being interrelated to one another.
( b ) no, the members of the trinity all have the same abilities (that is, they all possess the same attributes). what one member can do, the others can do as well seeing as they subsist in the same essence and comprise the single divine being (by this i mean to say that seeing as one's attributes are determined by one's essence, it is impossible to subsist within the single essence and not possess the same attributes). yet it is true that each member does indeed take on particular roles in salvation history (such that it is the son who was crucified etc.) but the matter of roles does not detract from the ontological equality possessed by these as it regards their nature. my very first job was working at a fast-food restaurant and there were three of us in the kitchen making the food (what a coincidence). each person had a specific role that they were assigned to do and while we worked as such, we each were fully capable of doing the job of the other. while we did have specific roles, it was not because we lacked the ability to perform any of the other roles.
( c ) it is true that each member of the trinity can function 'separately' from the other, yet given that there is only a single divine will, we must identify what exactly we mean by separate. each member of the trinity knows the others full well and there is a mutual indwelling between these (each exists within the other, hence why we cannot really speak of separate persons but rather distinct persons). given the single divine will, none can act in opposition to the others for they all comprise the single divine being who--while existent as 3 real persons--shares a single divine will between these.
yes! we do only have one god and not three gods. the distinctions within the one god are like the distinctions within space--3 distinctions that we could equally and truly call space yet we do not have three spaces but rather only one for these three are what the single space is existent as. conversely, this would mean no trinity if and only if the trinity stipulated three gods yet it doesn't:
given the above, i contend that your argument is not a problem for the trinitarian as it regards to logic but rather logic reinforces the validity of our position.
if i understand the above correctly, then it is the fact that there cannot be 3 different all-powerful entities which would supposedly damage the coherence of the doctrine of the trinity. at face-value i would have to agree with this but once again, this is not what we confess when we confess the trinity. we are not multiplying almighties but positing only a single almighty (for each person subsists only within the single essence) who is existent as three persons. if your point were in fact true then when speaking of space, we would run into the problem of multiplying whatever prerogatives are particular to space (if space were infinite then we might be accused of believing in three infinities by believing in the real distinctions within space) but this is not the case. each distinction within space has all the attributes of space because they exist as the one space. once more it is a case of existing within the single essence of space and not positing multiple essences. given that the prerogatives of god apply to each person, we would only have a problem if we did not also possess a single divine essence.
given all of the above, it once more need be said that the claim that the trinity is incoherent cannot be upheld for we have drastically similar examples of this in our very own universe and as we have seen throughout this post, when we try to apply the objections towards the trinity on things such as space, we then see how---for the lack of a better word--absurd these objections become. yet if the bible is to be believed, this is entirely expected seeing as:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. — Romans 1:20 KJV (emphasis mine)
from the above, we see that the bible claims that god's nature (that is the mode of his existence which encompasses the trinity) can be understood (as far as one can understand the infinite) from what he has created and this is why i have repeatedly returned to the example of space to show how the trinity functions (to the best of my knowledge). that said, it must again be said that one can understand the trinity not to be illogical without necessarily believing in it. one understands through logic but belief is predicated on faith and it is this fact that i have tried to emphasize. i believe that i have shown that the trinity cannot be attacked in terms of logic and the only credible opposition to it is merely in regards to one's faith (which is perfectly alright). if logic is what is being discussed then the fact that a three in one existence is exemplified in the universe should be enough to put claims to its incoherence to rest yet the fact that this is not actually the case says more (to me) about one's faith than about one's understanding of logic.
)