The Doctrine of the Trinity is logically implausible

God is complex. The Westminister Confession of Faith quoted above uses the term incomprehensible, though it does not mean he cannot be fathomed at all. As one commenter pointed out, Christians often point to God's transcendent "otherness" as reason enough to accept the Trinity's antinomies at face value. It is a cheap tactic, to be sure, and one I do not intend to take. In fact, I think it is possible to show the Trinity as quite plausible using a simple example.Illustration: Cube GodImage you encounter a being in our universe that is a sentient, perfectly geometrical cube. Cube does something remarkable before your eyes: he creates a two dimensional world and populates it with intelligent life. In this two dimensional world there is width and height but no depth. Cube begins to speak to his creation in order to reveal himself to them. He tells them, "I am your one and only creator." The creatures respond with thanksgiving and worship.Now, Cube tells you that he'd like to reveal his geometrical nature to them, but in a two-dimensional world, what is a cube? How could such a thing even be conceived? So, Cube does the next best thing. He intersects his being with the two dimensional plane. Before one creature's eyes, he touches one corner to the plane. Before another creature, he touches one edge to the plane. Before yet a third creature, he touches an entire side to the plane.To see an animated illustration of this: http://www.godandscience.org...The first creature witnesses that Cube is a point. The second witnesses that Cube is a line segment. The third witnesses that Cube is a square. In a two dimensional world, it seems logically impossible for Cube to be all three of these things yet still be the "one and only creator." In their world, there are no categories for describing a cube. The concept is utterly meaningless. Imagine that Cube tells his creation, "I know you are confused, but I have depth in addition to width and height." How would they understand it? The term depth is incomprehensible.Logical Law of Identity My opponent wants to argue that the Trinity is logically implausible, but he has not accounted for the fact that Logic itself has a limited purview. As beings confined to this universe, we can only describe things in terms of this universe. This becomes a problem when you consider the first law of logic: the Law of Identity.The law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. [1]But identity is precisely the limiting factor in this case. My opponent is hyper focused on mathematics of three persons and one God, forgetting that "person" merely describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from our limited perspective. But what if God exists in a reality that has one or more dimensions than our existence? Isn't it logically plausible that we simply don't have categories to describe God's complexity? The two dimensional creatures are stuck with an antinomy that Cube is three geometries but one creator, but since we understand depth, we can make sense of Cube's actual being. In the same way, we do not have all the categories necessary to understand God's actual being. So, we do the best he can.God has revealed himself in many ways. He's told us he is one God, but then Jesus and Holy Spirit claim to be God also while also operating in our world as distinct persons. The very idea is rife with tension, but resolving tensions for tensions' sake is erroneous. Light was discovered to have the properties of both waves and particles, which seems to be a logical contradiction. But that's only because we lack the information needed to resolve the tension.Thus, the law if identity is only as good as our categories and our categories are finite.Refutation of Pro's Argument 1This brings us naturally to Pro's argument. Pro is trying to resolve the tension using mathematical categories, and in so doing, engages in the fallacy of redefinition. His first premise defines the following: Let the Father=A Let the Son=B Let the Holy Spirit=C Let God=D The problem is that this is completely different from the definition of the trinity. He's just defined four persons. But the Trinity clearly states that God is three persons of one substance. Thus, all the math that follows is irrelevant since he is refuting a straw man.The real issue is that there is no way to describe the Trinity using simple mathematics, precisely because we do not have access to the entirety of God's being. That doesn't make the Trinity logically implausible though it does make it mathematically indescribable.ConclusionThe illustration presented here is meant to offer one very plausible explanation for the Trinity. If God has at least one more dimension than our universe, then the Trinity is logically plausible and I have fulfilled my burden for this debate.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...