It recently came to my attention that a fellow Christian blogger in response to an atheist’s question suggested that the Trinity could be a brute fact. This is astonishingly sloppy for many reasons. First, if the Trinity is a brute fact, there is no point to apologetics. Because not only do you wash away the debate between groups like the Arians, Strict Monotheists or Oneness Pentecostals, if the true God is a Trinity, you have thwarted a need for apologetics, for his existence and being is a brute fact now.
When you have a wrong conclusion, it’s usually because you made a misstep somewhere in solving the problem, like in math. I think I have found the misstep it took to form this conclusion.
A 4 person or 2 person god would cease to be the God of the Bible, or at least not be the same God. The blogger says that the number of persons wouldn’t be a problem for the MGB argument as long as it was more than one, but the MGB would have to exist, right? Well, the amount of persons would play a role in whether or not that God exists.
Let’s forget possible worlds for a second and talk about the one that was actualized. We both agree that God is a Trinity, what we don’t agree is on the contingency of his being. The brute fact suggestion along with speculation on the number of persons is just as lazy as an assumed conclusion.
To say that God’s being has no explanation, that his existence in three persons is merely the result of a feasible world combination is simply antithetical to the christian apologetic cause as well as Chalcedonian Christology.
In conclusion my problems with this suggestion:
1.) If the Trinity is a brute fact, there is no need for apologetics.
2.) God’s very being is contingent on what possible worlds are feasible
3.) If God isn’t a Trinity, he isn’t the same God