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”  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”  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 learn quran online free 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 . 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 learn quran online free hold that we cannot ascribe three different “nouns” to one “entity” unless they are semantically synonymous  and non-gradable  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 . 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.
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 God’s 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 .
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.