Christians, namely Trinitarians, claim that Trinity is three in one and one in three. In terms of cardinality it is logical enough to notice that three means one, two, and three, that is more than one. It simply means plurality. But how do Christians justify and compromise this plurality? This is what we will see in the following discussion.

Mathematically speaking, asserting that 1=3 and 3=1 is logically absurd. It can only be right if we subtract 2 from three or add minus [1] two to the three. In both cases the result is number one. Now this is in terms of quantity. But Christian Trinitarians argue that this is not what they mean. Rather, they proceed to say that the three are one in terms of quality while still can remain separate in terms of quantity. Well, simple logic rejects that immediately because, semantically speaking, if we say that three semantically different nouns [2] are the same, that is synonymous, then this is absurd as well. I will logically demonstrate where the absurdity comes from.

Let us assume that we have three semantically different nouns. Let us assume that they are related in some manner to abide by the begotten-and-proceed Christian definition of Trinity. One noun is X, the other is Y and the third is Z. Trinitarians maintain that the Father begot the Son while the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Father. By analogy, just assuming that X gave rise to Y and that Z proceeded from X does not directly and necessarily mean that they are qualitatively equal [3]. As a corollary, by what logical criterion and rational induction have Christians been able to infer from this proposition that all three are qualitatively equal?

Semantic maxims state that there cannot be three non-synonymous nouns Unless there are three different entities. This is apodictic knowledge. Furthermore, the maxims hold that we cannot ascribe three different nouns to one entity unless they are semantically synonymous [4] and non-gradable [5] among themselves. But in the case of Trinity you just cannot help having second thoughts about its tenability. Why?

Answer: because, as mentioned in the gospel of John, the Father is greater than the Son [6]. Here the non-gradability maxim is violated. Moreover, if we say that the nouns Son, Holy Spirit, and Father are semantically the same i.e. synonymous, then, this is another perplexing problem. The synonymity maxim is also violated here. In this connection, when these semantic maxims are violated it means one of two things. That either:

1) The proposition is absurd by means of reductio ad absurdum, hence the unfeasibility of the argument. or, 2) The entity in question must be comprised of different and discrete things.

If the case is the latter, then this is not true with regards to God. Why?

Answer: because it simply means that the existence of the Godhead is conditional upon the existence of all three. There is a sense of interdependence among the three to induce, at least, a conceptual or mental existence of the Godhead in our minds, not to say out there in reality. As we all know, dependence and conditionality should not characterize Gods existence, lest they should imply need. Only creatures and creations need an interdependence and interplay of their inner structures and components to maintain survival and existence [7].

Again, if we refute this by asserting that there is no such thing as interdependence, we run into another problem. It is the problem of discreteness. That is, each one of the three is separate and discrete and does not need any of the other two to maintain its existence. If this is the case, then we have three self-sufficient, independent gods. In short, we have polytheism.

This is why Christians use the problematic analogy of matter, time, and space to describe the Godhead concept. They say that each of the three is comprised of three components. Respectively, matter: gas, solid, and liquid; time: past, present, and future; and space: height, width, and depth. This analogy only adds insult to injury! Again: why?

Answer: because, although the concept of matter is comprised of liquid, solid, and gas, there is nothing that exists that can be solid, gas, and liquid at the same time. Therefore, a glass of water in your hand can only be one of the three but not all three at the same time. It cannot be steam, ice, and drinkable water at the same time. The same applies to time. Time or a specific moment in time cannot be past, present, and future at the same time. The concept of space is an exception. Not because its three elements can be maintained at the same time but because God should not be described in terms of width, length, and height like any other measurable and sizable entity.

God has created dimensions and measurements for our convenience as human beings to help us understand and conceive existence. God is absolute, limitless and beyond the boundaries of space and time. God is the creator and originator of space, matter, and time, so how does it become plausible to analogize between The Eternal and Infinite and the finite entities He has created such as space, time, and matter? The analogy does not hold in the first place.

Assuming only for the sake of discussion that all of the three components for each of time, space, and matter can exist at the same time, we still have another problem. Again, it is the problem of interdependence and conditionality: the concept of time cannot exist without past, present and future; the concept of space cannot exist without length, width, and height; the concept of matter cannot exist without liquid, solid, and gas. These restrictions should not apply to God whose existence is neither conditional nor dependent. He is free of all needs, absolute, eternal, timeless, and infinite in grandeur, mercy, power, knowledge and wisdom. In short, there exist no conditions whatsoever that God cannot exist without because He necessarily exists by himself.

This is why God is One and only One. In terms of ordinality, is not number one the first?

Just think about number one. This wonderful number connotes uniqueness, singularity, unity, independence, and precedence. Therefore, God is The First before any beginning and He is The Last before any end can become an end. If you multiply number one by itself ad infinitum or divide it by itself ad infinitum you will only get one number: number one, hence number one forever. If you try to divide one by any other number you will break it!

Even if you divide it by minus one (-1) the absolute value Is still number one. It follows that ultimate truth can only be one and that all people should be united as if one body, as if one family, and worship one and only one God.

This is the God which Muslims worship. In Arabic, they call Him Allah. It is He who called Himself Allah, meaning the only One to be worshipped and glorified. Muslims did not name Allah nor did they even name themselves. Allah has called Himself Allah and has called the ones who worship Him Muslims, meaning the ones who submit and surrender themselves to One Creator: Allah.

In the Quran we read:

It is He Allah, besides whom there is no other god; The Sovereign, The Holy One, The Peaceful and Perfect, The Guarantor, The Guardian, The Almighty, The Powerful, The Tremendous: Glory to Allah! Far is He from the partners they set up with Him! He is Allah, The Creator, The Evolver, The Fashioner of Forms. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and in the earth glorifies Him; and He is The Almighty, The Wise (23-24:59)

We also read elsewhere in the Quran:

No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (otherwise), behold, each god would have seized what he had created, and they would have dominated one another! Glory to Allah! Far is He from what they ascribe to Him! (91: 23)

Be careful:

The Arabic origin of the word has induced some non Muslims to accept the misconception that Allah is another God or Deity Who only belongs to Muslims or Arabs. This can be corrected by referring to the etymology of the word Allah in the language of Jesus and the apostles, which was Aramaic. Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic are cognate languages because all three belong to the family of Semitic languages (Crystal, 1992) & (Matthews, 1997). In the language of Moses (i.e. Hebrew) Allah is pronounced Eloha. In the language of Jesus (i.e. Aramaic) Allah is pronounced Alaha. In the language of Mohammad (i.e. Arabic) Allah is the final phylogenetic destination of the name in Hebrew and Aramaic (Shehri, 2003). Thus one can see that the use of the word Allah is consistent, not only with the Quran but with genuine (only genuine) Biblical traditions as well (Dirks, 2001).

References:

Crystal, D. (1992) An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Language and Languages, Penguin Books, p. 25.

Dirks, J. F. (2001) The Cross & The Crescent, amana publications, United States, p.177.

Matthews, P. H. (1997) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford University Press, p.336.

Shehri, A. S. (2003) Truth Exposed: Explaining the Purpose of Human Existence, Cooperative Office for Call & Guidance, Jubail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, p. 51, 52.

1 provided that no essence of God can be minus.

2 The Godhead comprises three different nouns: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3 From another perspective, even the letters X, Y and Z are phonetically different sounds!

4 Synonymous: we cannot say that sister means brother although they are members of the same family.

5 Non-gradable: if something is said to be one, can we say that it is greater and smaller than itself?

6 ...my Father is greater than I John 14:28.

7 For example, the distribution and interaction of atoms within us is necessary to maintain our existence. Our existence is dependent on this interdependence among different particles. God, in turn, has created us and these elementary particles; therefore our entire existence depends on God.