It is common for some Trinitarian apologists to appeal to light being both a wave and a particle as a valid analogy for Trinitarian theology (three persons in one being). This was ably answered by Jaco Van Zyl in the comments section of Another Trinity/Monotheism "Debate". Commenting on the use of this analogy by Robert Bowman (Evangelical) in his debate with Dave Burke (Christadelphian), Van Zyl wrote:
Something Dave did not reply to was Bowman’s familiar analogy to light’s dualistic nature (particle/wave).
I have a few qualms with this. Firstly, and I hope Bowman will not make this rather amateurish mistake, this analogy sounds like “proof by illustration.” If, indeed, he is not trying to prove the validity of different “natures” in one “being” by using this example, it still does not do much for Bowman’s argument, and it brings me to my next qualm: Why use an illustration in which different natures of light has been confirmed, to prove the plurality of another (God), when this is exactly what has to be determined? The analogy is also false in that, (and I hope Dave will point this out) God, Elohim, ho Theos, Yahweh, are all proper names. These nouns are never presented as abstract or qualitative attributes but as identities. How Bowman can see a correlation between inanimate light (noun) having different attributes or behaviors (particle/wave) and the personal Yahweh (proper name) subsisting of different persons is more an allusion to Modalism than trinitarianism. Syllogistically, Bowman’s reasoning goes like this:
Premise 1: The Bible presents Yahweh to be one
Premise 2: As with light, being one does not deny having plurality
Conclusion: The Bible presents Yahweh to be a plurality.
Premise 2: As with light, being one does not deny having plurality
Conclusion: The Bible presents Yahweh to be a plurality.
Not only does it smack in the face of logic (structural fallacy of affirmative conclusion from negative premise(s)) and exegesis (conceptual range of Yahweh, Elohim, ho Theos), but, to me, is rather demeaning. The quantum physicists he referenced would easily tell us what we could expect if light were a particle alone or a wave alone and they would be honoured for their openhearted honesty. We see, however, that Bowman evades the question of what to expect if the Bible presented Yahweh to be a Unitarian God, or God being one person and one being.
Finally, I’d like to see explicit proof, presented within the cognitive range of ancient Judaism, that the faithful Jews clearly distinguished between the concepts of “being” and “person.” Hebrew words confirming these meanings and concepts would be much appreciated. Sola Scriptura, remember?
