The fathers want to have a stronger inseparability to the operations of the Trinity as they often use disanalogies like, say, three cooks working together to prepare a single meal and are often having to explain how it is that the Son alone became incarnate but not the Father and Spirit as well, which they (thinking of Augustine) find hard to answer.

And btw, closely related to this doctrine of 'inseperable operations' is another one called the doctrine of 'appropriations' which L. Ayres explains in his book 'Nicaea and its Legacy':

Closely linked to the doctrines of divine simplicity and inseparable operation is the practice of appropriation. Appropriation is the practice of attributing to one divine person an attribute or action that is common to the Godhead and thus to all divine persons: because the persons work inseparably in the context of the divine simplicity we frequently speak about something as characteristic of a divine person although it is in fact equally true of all divine persons. Appropriation is, for pro-Nicenes, an important habit of Christian speech because it is central to Scripture's own speech about the divine persons. Appropriation is sometimes presented as an ‘Augustinian’ doctrine: in fact, Augustine's clarity about the doctrine—which may be seen in Chapter 15—is simply the clearest statement of a common pro-Nicene principle.

> What happens in an imaginative brain is not evidence of an afterlife.


No one can really say, can they? Is it the chemical process of moribundity, the brain "dreaming" as it approaches mortality, or is it evidence of the afterlife? I know for a fact you can't say for certain that it is only "an imaginative brain." Science can't tell us the full picture and meaning of what's happening here.

> The thought of an afterlife certainly has appeal as a fantasy, but that is not evidence that it exists.

Nor is it evidence that it doesn't exist. The jury is still out. It may not be fantasy or wishful thinking after all. That we all have some inner instinct to a reality beyond life has nothing to do with survival, but it sure is an intriguing intuition that may speak to greater truths.

> The alleged resurrection of Jesus has no good evidence.

There is actually quite a body of good evidence. And the alternate explanations are quite weak. If you'd like to have this conversation, we can, but it would have to be its own thread.

> "Near-death" is just that.

NDEs continue to be researched, but research can only take them as far the chemistry and biology, obviously. If there is a spiritual reality to it, that's beyond the scope of science.

> But it only can deal with testable things, and heaven is beyond that.

Correct. Science has limited reach.

All in all, I've presented you with at least the possibility of an afterlife. While I can't prove it exists, neither can you or anyone prove it doesn't. The logical possibility of an afterlife should motivate you to give it serious consideration as real. As you said, science doesn't pretend to know everything and can only deal with testable things.

1. What happens in an imaginative brain is not evidence of an afterlife.

2. The thought of an afterlife certainly has appeal as a fantasy, but that is not evidence that it exists. 3 Whether Darwin was right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

3. The alleged resurrection of Jesus has no good evidence. That gods get resurrected was already a part of myths at the time of Jesus. You probably don't believe in those other myths.

4. "Near-death" is just that. The brain is in bad shape then. But the interesting thing is that NDE's vary by religion, with each religion having images of their own religious figures and legendary afterlives. I doubt that you are going to switch religions because of that.

5. Science doesn't pretend to know everything. Science is just a methodology that helps determine truth. But it only can deal with testable things, and heaven is beyond that.

> When he went to pray alone, he wasn't teaching us how to pray.

Correct. When he prayed alone, He was actually talking to the Father.

> If he was a separate person from the father, then my point is made.

Your point is not made unless you ignored everything I said (with no rebuttal or refutation, I observe) and have also ignored Christian theology for the past 2000 years. The Trinity has been the subject of much thought and writing through the millennia; just because Jesus prayed to the Father does not substantiate your point that the Trinity was not unified.

> But I view the Trinity as a conundrum for Christians

Of course it's a conundrum, but not one without explanation or reason to it.

> I'm really more interested in serious matters like proof of an afterlife.

1. We all have an inner awareness, at least a wondering, that there's more to this life than living and dying, more than just trying to make it through the day. This common awareness speaks more to the reality of an afterlife than a denial of it.

2. The history of humanity shows that every culture, globally and throughout human existence, had a belief in deities and in an afterlife of some sort. It's as if the idea were carved right into our beings. And yet the idea has no particular evolutionary advantage or contribution to survival (which is the four Fs: fight, flight, food, and, um, reproduction). It speaks more to the reality of an afterlife than a denial of it.

3. Human ideas of morality, self-sacrifice, and charity often run counter to the Darwinian drive to outcompete one's neighbor. The postulate of an afterlife enables us to make sense of human goodness, beneficence, sacrifice, and forgiveness, among other qualities as well.

4. Jesus's resurrection is postulated by Christians as a proof of an afterlife (1 Cor. 15). If we examine the claims to the resurrection logically, juridically, and scientifically, we arrive at the great probability of an afterlife.

5. So many Near-Death Experiences (NDE) seem to indicate the possibility, if not the probability. Not the hokey NDEs, but the legitimate ones that have been examined and seem too remarkable to be explainable.

6. Science tells us that our understanding even of what we see is only about 5% of what's there (dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of all the universe, and they are not understood well at all). String theory? Quantum? Multiple dimensions? Multiverses? How presumptuous of us to think that with lack of scientific proof in the last 100 years (of modern science) according to present-day standards is enough to say heaven and hell aren't real.

When he went to pray alone, he wasn't teaching us how to pray. If he was a separate person from the father, then my point is made.

But I view the Trinity as a conundrum for Christians (who seem to revel in the mystery of it all), and not my problem as an atheist. I'm really more interested in serious matters like proof of an afterlife.

That's a good observation. My response is twofold.

First, he was modeling prayer for us. It could never be accused, "Well, He told us to pray, but we never saw Him do it." And you are very well aware, I'm sure, of how Jesus would be raked over the coals by modern critics and scoffers if He had told us to pray but never did so Himself. He would be accused of hypocrisy and a double standard, if not apathetic or even anti-theist. You know how people are now.

Second, He was a separate person from the Father, and therefore could justifiably communicate. This is an important reason why the Trinity is not only sensible but also necessary. If God is just a singularity, we are left with the emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate reality. If there is no plurality within God's being, then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, but instead only a blank unity. In such a view of God, there can be no foundation for creation as separate from God, for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. If all there is is an absolute monolithic deity, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing more may be said. That is why the Trinity is so important in tackling the philosophical problem of the one and the many, as well as the psychological problem of subject-object relationships. The Trinity is necessary for reality.

Yeah, he showed up on earth multiple times. When he showed up as Jesus, he prayed to his "father", which doesn't make sense if the Trinity were unified as there would be no need for such communication.

I showed you both from a pleasant analogy and from science how the Trinity is not far-fetched at all. Yet it has no effect on you. God came to Earth, yet it has no effect on you. I'm not convince that Him showing up again would make the slightest difference for you. He has shown up many times in history in various ways. We have a 1500-page book of the record of it. Yet it has no effect on you. There are people around you—Christians—whose lives have been radically changed by Jesus, and not just in religious ways. Possibly Him showing Himself again, even to clarify things, wouldn't mean anything to you. Look at the religious leaders around when Jesus was here. They actually saw Him and talked to Him, and He clarified a lot of things, but they weren't persuaded, either. They had Him killed. What makes you think you'd react any differently? And if you think you would, let's starting reading the Gospels together and you can approach them with an open mind. We can talk about it as you read, and I'll comment and answer any questions you have. If you're open-minded and wish to learn, let's pursue it. I'll help you in whatever way I can.

Sounds like a fantasy to me. God has shown himself before - let him do it again so I can get him to clarify things.

People just need to learn how to think instead of just judging on superficials.

Maybe think of it this way (an analogy written by Sheldon Vanauken [but remember that all analogies fail if pressed too hard]): Suppose I write a book, and I put myself in it. The character "me" says what I would say and does what I would do. It's ME in the book. He's exactly as I am. He is me. Now, is the character in the book different from the me outside of the book? Of course he is. But is it me? Of course it is. He's all me, but he's all a separate character. I can easily be both the author and a character without compromising either. I'm am the character in the book, but the character in the book is distinct from me.

If you're into science, in quantum mechanics there is a principle called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states at once. This again may be a kind of analogy, if that helps. They're unified, but they're not.

For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting. They're unified but they're not.

Maybe more people should come to Christianity. Christianity is a good belief system for thinking people.