Why is it silly? We talk about many things that don't have physical stats of matter, and yet use our physical experiences to talk about them. When we talk about proving things we often try to corroborate different ways to experience something to show its authenticity. "Wind" for example. We can't see it - be we can see it's effect. Wind has no temperature - but we experience the cold or warmth that is carried in it. Wind has no smell, no taste, and no physical matter to speak of - yet we talk about how we experience the feeling of wind, the smells of wind, and the tastes carried in the wind. The way we experience things is paramount to our understanding of things. No one would say the wind doesn't exist.
We experience God in many ways. The Bible is writings about people's experience of God and in them God is talked about in many different ways. Now the trinity refers to God in more than just experience - in other words this is just a small part of it. The trinity is also about relationship, about love, about the incarnation (Jesus coming into humanity), and about spiritual things which most nonbelievers would immediately refuse as an answer.
So to stay with the analogy - this is simply a way to talk about how and why Christians refer to God as the trinity. The question is not how can 1+1+1=3, the question is solve A+B+C=God.
I will however concede that humanity doesn't and cannot have the ability to fully understand or not-understand what we are talking about when we talk about God the omnipotent creator.
First, thanks for responding and welcome to WWGHA Forums. As you may have already noticed, many of us are former believers and used to believe like you - until later discovering these views to be irrational. With that said, let me address at least two points you have made above.
1. Your wind analogy is another faulty one (in addition to the faulty water analogy - which I myself used to ascribe). Wind does
in fact have "physical matter". It is,
in fact, physical and it can be demonstrated as such. Is it your contention that non-believers in your religion think that we must always see things with our eyes to justify thinking they are real? I don't think one scientist I've ever heard of thinks this way. Your analogies fail because both water and
wind can be DEMONSTRATED. The alleged deity "thing" named "Yahweh" that you believe in cannot.
2. You made the statement that, "humanity doesn't and cannot have the ability to fully understand or not-understand what we are talking about when we talk about God the omnipotent creator"
. There are at least two major problems here. For one, you've contradicted yourself quite directly. Which is it? Does humanity have the capacity to understand this "God", or does it not? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, if humanity does not have the capacity to understand this "thing" then why are you believing in it??
Can you see how this sounds like class A credulity? You have a presumption that your bible is "the word of God" (indeed a pre-commitment) and now you're trying to defend it. But how is that a good thing? Don't you find this approach just a little bit backwards?
Finally, anyone can makeup just about any term (such as "God the omnipotent creator") and then claim that, "Well, it's real but we just can't understand it." What if I said, "Hey, Blark the Magnificent Schmarbelfarben is real! But you just can't understand cause you're not like him." Wouldn't you be thinking, "WTF? Is this guy nuts?" So too, we find these assertions about your deity equally as preposterous and nuts. Can you see why?