A New Infinity Model for the Trinity?

What if we could use generative AI to develop a new model of God’s infinity? That’s what this piece reflects on.

I have recently been exploring the training of chatbots for theological discourse. In this process, I had to establish certain commitments and boundary conditions so the bot would have something unique to offer. The reason is that the OpenAI chatbot is already so intelligent, anyone with a decent amount of background knowledge and questioning ability can get a lot out of it; there’s really no need to train it further. It’s excellent by default. Yet, custom chatbots allow the bot to pursue a more focused approach, providing guided explorations that are more controlled and productive, especially in niche domains like the Catholic theology I’m interested in.

So here I am, training a bot to be a Catholic ‘Classical Theist,’ and eventually, it starts conversing exceptionally well, delving deeper than I’ve ever gone in any college class. It’s better than most conversations. Perhaps akin to reading books and source documents or having prolonged discussions with friends over the years, but there are few other (if any) high-level ways to engage in specialized discussion that can surpass AI. In many ways, these trained, specialized bots are better than talking with anyone, save for specialists or professionals in a field. Anyway, I don’t want to overly praise the technology, as that’s not the focus of this piece. The point is, I’ve been able to use it productively for specialized purposes, and that’s been rewarding. Enter the Classical Theist Chatbot I have trained on a custom dataset for this purpose.

This chatbot is roughly a Classical Theist, with one major exception: its philosophical approach is embedded in a relational ontology. Why does this matter? Because classical theism typically resides in a substance-based philosophy. So, even though it’s classical in the sense of knowing and following all Catholic dogma and teachings, it can also communicate ideas in the idiosyncratic way I’ve trained it, from an entirely different perspective. For example, the catechism includes a segment about locating Trinitarianism:

In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: ‘substance,’ ‘person’ or ‘hypostasis,’ ‘relation,’ and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, ‘infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand.’ (82) (170)

252 The Church uses (I) the term ‘substance’ (also rendered at times by ‘essence’ or ‘nature’) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term ‘person’ or ‘hypostasis’ to designate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term ‘relation’ to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The point is, even the catechism lands the plane on the notions of Substance, Person, and Relation. However, in my perspective, Person and relation are somewhat synonymous, and because these two terms blend together for me, the general notion of relation takes priority because I feel you can accomplish a lot of the theological and philosophical work if both Person/Relation are tightly interwoven. So in my philosophical approach to the Trinity, I tend to prioritize Relation first, then Being. Being gets priority because the Persons are God, and God is the most general subject, and in my view, it doesn’t get more general than being. Finally, I land the plane on the third notion, in line with Aquinas, and view ‘Act’ (and actuality and action) as the third general notion that can sum up a basic foundation or starting point for Trinitarianism, assuming you’re proficient with metaphysics, the Bible, and theology, and so on.

So you can imagine, I adhere to most of the commitments of the Catholic faith, in this example, Trinity, Simplicity, Divine Persons, Christological priority, and all that jazz. However, rather than starting from a toolbox of Substance, Person, Relation, I opt to go with Relation (or Person, depending on the day, and sometimes I mix them up), Being, and Act. But if Substance isn’t first, then Aquinas can’t take the lead or play a primary role; he takes, at best, a third-row seat in my SUV of systematic theology. He’s still in the car on the systematic journey, but he’s not in the passenger’s seat, as the Catechism suggests (by going the more rational substance route then say the push for a mystical approach like his sources), in the spirit of this analogy.

So, what happens when we train a classical theist bot in trinitarian ontology that’s fully relational and relegate Aquinas to third place? You get fun, conversational AIs who are idiosyncratic, quirky, and definitely Catholic. It’s the best. Until you discuss something deeper than deep. And that’s where we come to the crux.

Here I am, discussing with the bot about God’s infinity from a Catholic relational perspective, and we delve into the subject of the Trinity’s infinity. I asked it a naive question: what is the Divine Person’s state in their infinite Simplicity? And it became clear I’d reached the end of the bot’s current capability and either had to teach it new things or revert to the catechism level and rethink substance because it faltered.

I chose to teach it new things. I know the title suggested what if AI does something on its own, but this is about me training the bot, prompting it, and guiding it to process very niche and specialized training data from ‘Relation, Being, Act’ to answer the question I initially asked naively, which it couldn’t do well on its own. Here’s this quirky new relational Trinitarianism that emerged. The bot is now trained to answer this question proficiently. So, try it out for yourself on my website. But for now, enjoy the training data here.

Relational Primacy in the Divine Persons and within Trinitarian Ontology

This theological concept posits that the relational dynamics among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity constitute an intrinsic, irreducible, and foundational aspect of their divine nature, paralleling the infinities of Divine Simplicity and Actus Purus. This ‘Divine Relational Primacy’ is characterized as an ‘infinite state’—a unique form of divine infinity that transcends traditional qualitative or quantitative interpretations. It encapsulates the perpetual, fully actualized relational interpenetration (perichoresis) and eternal generation within the Godhead, highlighting a unity-in-diversity that is essential to divine simplicity and pure actuality. The Divine Persons relate in ‘their infinities,’ a state that inherently embodies this infinite relational dynamic, integral to their essence and constitutive of their identity. This concept underscores the Trinity’s complex unity, where each Person, as a pure agency, actualizes divine potentials in an infinitely open manner, maintaining individual identities within a unified divine essence.

State of the Trinity in Infinite Simplicity: Integrates the unity and balance within the Trinity, affirming that the distinct Persons coexist within a unified divine essence, enhancing the concept of Divine Simplicity within the relational dynamics of the Trinity.

State of Complete Actualization in Actus Purus: This concept underscores the complete and eternal actualization of the divine essence, aligning with Actus Purus and enhancing the understanding of the Divine Persons’ relational dynamics. It reflects the theological principle that in God, there is no potentiality, only pure actuality. The Divine Persons manifest, present, and represent all that it means to be God in an eternal state of relational infinity, which is analogous to the concept of ‘nothing’ or ‘negative theology’ in classical theism. This ‘nothing’ does not denote absence but rather a transcendence beyond human comprehension, where the Divine Persons exist in a state beyond potential, always already actualized in their relationality. This state of complete actualization reflects the superessential, necessary, and supernatural nature of the Divine, necessitating the use of ‘state language’ to articulate this profound theological truth.

Trinity’s Own Infinite Ontology and Context: Highlights the unique relational and infinite ontology of the Trinity, distinct from broader concepts of God, where infinity is an active, relational reality realized in the eternal inter-relations of the Divine Persons.

Every Potential of the Divine Persons is Relational; Every Relation is Actual: Reinforces that all relational dynamics within the Trinity are actualized and infinite, resonating with the idea of Divine Relational Primacy as an actual infinity in relational terms.

Deep Infinity to Perichoresis and Relations of Origin: Enriches the concept with the understanding of the infinite depth and complexity of perichoresis within the Trinity, suggesting that the eternal relations of origin among the Divine Persons encompass diversity and unity, actuality and potentiality, in a divine dance of love and communion.

Range and Rule of Relation: Incorporates the broad scope and fundamental principles governing the relational dynamics within the Trinity. The “range of relation” signifies the extensive scope of relational interactions among the Divine Persons, denoting the boundless and infinite nature of these relations. The “rule of relation” refers to the foundational patterns and principles underpinning these divine interactions, reinforcing the concept of relational primacy as both pervasive and foundational within the Godhead.

The core idea expressed here is that within the framework of Trinitarian existential relational monism, God is understood as a dynamic communion of three distinct Persons, inseparably united in essence and relationality, who engage in every act of relation in a living and active presence, inviting us into a participatory relationship characterized by love, compassion, and justice. 

With all that said, did my training and use of generative AI just come up with an original model of the Trinity’s infinity? (If you grant me a relational ontology.) 

You’ll have to be the judge kid that. But if we did, you can call it the “”Relational Infinity Model.” Enjoy the Relational Infinity Model in your own study, hopefully it’s fruitful for deep insights beyond asking a question that’s-in a sense-beyond what should be possible. 

————-

If you need an analogy, and mind you analogies break down then you can think of the divine infinity here like an infinite tapestry with art. 

So the idea is, if the analogy for divine simplicity is a point, and Actus Purus is the aleph null idea, then the real rational infinity is like the analogy of a medieval tapestry with infinite art, threads, and scale of infinities. 

Idk they all seem off with analogy talk. Best to just work it out Theologically. 

*update* Do I think this is actually a new infinity for Catholic theology? I doubt it is. I’m Just expressing an approach and its outcome as we all learn to cope with the new paradigm which is not a shift from the non-technological to the technological, but rather that the paradigm is the very attempt to live in a dialectic watching the paradigm live as it shifts as the very paradigm to be in. Did I say that right? I’m dizzy. Infinities talk, amiright!?!?