Let's assume that God isn't restricted to three dimensions as we are, but exists in at least four dimensions if not more. If God created the universe from outside, then I see no reason for this suggestion to be controversial. For imagery, consider the following explanation of the 4th dimension by Carl Sagan: Sounds familiar in terms of God's historical interactions with humanity, does it not? But if that's the case, then on what reasonable grounds would an individual have for claiming that God's nature is not trinitarian because it doesn't make logical sense, when in fact we can conceive of a fourth dimension that does make logical sense, but is, in fact, impossible for our brains to conceptualise (go ahead, think of a tesseract). Is God's revelation not, therefore, the translation of super-dimensionality into our existence, although never absolutely accurately due to our natural restrictions (and of no fault of God's)? Thus God is Trinitarian, though our understanding of the full reality incomplete given our natural restrictions, and in that way, its incomprehensibility is a proof of the doctrine's truthfulness rather than as an argument against it. This has been said before, but thoughts?
I think that's a fairly reasonable and succinct argument. One of the problems that philosopher/scientist/poet/artist/warriors have always had is the problem that the observer has to impact the observed; yet, as you note above, the super-dimensionality of God renders the "observer interference of the observed" argument moot. Can you say "billlllllllllllyuns"?
I believe so. One purpose of the revelation of God in Christ is to teach man that, just as in the matter of time, He both permeates and transcends all dimensions, having created all dimensions. Man has no reasonable grounds for denying the Trinity based upon what he concludes to be logical, but is compelled to realize there is a limit, at this point in time, to his ability to fully comprehend. And just as God is timeless, it could be said that He occupies no measurable dimension.
I don't think so. The reference to Sagan's description is to demonstrate that although we may not understand or comprehend the Trinity, the fact that we can conceive of such a being is rational, and the fact that we can't fully describe Trinity is evidence of the truthfulness of the concept, e.g., if we could explain it, it wouldn't be God.
And the doctrine of the Trinity breaks no law of logic depsite what people who aren’t trained in logic might think.
Everything I ever needed in comprehending God was summed up in one verse for me. Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. Good enough for Moses and Israel, good enough for me. There's already a million things in the secular world beyond my comprehension.
The story in 2 Kings 6 IMO is an example Elisha and the young servant for a moment were granted to see in another dimension, v15-17.
I do believe one must worship the God of the Bible. And it’s only through the sacrificial death of Jesus that one can even be saved. What I’m saying is I don’t believe one must fully comprehend how God is 3 in 1. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But how, EXACTLY, that works...not a salvation issue.