Construct a detailed series of arguments against the Trinitarian theology in David Bentley Hart's book "The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth", as well as -to a lesser extent- Amiroutzes, John of Segovia, John of Damascus, Ramon Llull, and Riccoldo da Montecroce. Also, integrate the following but make it better and more detailed and coherent:
The Ratzinger-Nichols conception of transubstantiation in the Eucharist posits a transformation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ, while retaining the external appearance of bread and wine. However, this concept poses several philosophical challenges that can be explored through the lens of phenomenology and the teachings of Mulla Sadra. Firstly, from a phenomenological perspective, we understand the essence of an object to be inherent in its appearance and properties. The idea that the substance of bread and wine can change while its accidents remain the same is a contradiction in terms. It goes against the fundamental principle that a thing's essence is inseparable from its outward form. Mulla Sadra's concept of existentialism further complicates this, as he posits that existence is the essence of beings. Thus, to claim that the essence of bread and wine can change without altering their outward appearance is to defy the very nature of existence itself. Furthermore, the notion of transubstantiation raises deeper questions about the nature of God. If God is immutable and unchanging, as many philosophical traditions argue, then how can He undergo a transformation in the Eucharist? The idea that God can alter His essence goes against His very nature as the unchanging and eternal being. Additionally, the concept of accidents or change occurring in God or His essence is illogical, as it implies limitations on His infinite nature. Additionally, the belief in transubstantiation leads us to question the limitlessness of God. If God is truly omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then how can He be confined to physical forms such as bread and wine? The idea that God could be present in one place and lacking in another defies the very essence of His divine nature. This notion of limitlessness is central to our understanding of God and must be upheld in our philosophical discussions. Drawing upon late Ashari Atomism and existentialism, we can further challenge the concept of transubstantiation. The idea that physical substances can undergo a complete transformation into the divine essence of God goes against the principles of atomism, which suggest that all physical substances are composed of indivisible particles. This leads us to a more general argument against the incarnation of God in human form. If God is limitless in all aspects - be it temporal, physical, or spiritual - then the idea of Him taking on a finite, human form seems contradictory. It suggests a limitation on God's omnipotence and transcendence, which undermines the very notion of His divinity. The trinity, as another aspect of Christian theology, also poses problems within this framework. The concept of three distinct persons in one God challenges the idea of God's limitlessness, as it implies a division within the divine essence. The notion that God could be confined to a singular human form, or exist in three distinct persons, raises significant philosophical questions. How can a limitless and immutable being be contained within the limitations of human existence or divided into multiple persons? The Father’s generation of the Son implies that the Father is logically or causally prior to the Son, and a distributional property can’t account for this, and this would mean that there was an accident (here causality, be it logical or temporal) in God’s essence. Any one-self theory is hard to square with the New Testament’s theme of the interpersonal relationship between Father and Son. (Layman 2016, 129–30; McCall 2010, 87–8, 2014c, 117–27; Plantinga 1989, 23–7) Any one-self theory is also hard to square with the Son’s role as mediator between God and humankind (Tuggy and Date 2020, 122–3). These teachings arguably assume the Son to be a self, not a mere mode of a self, and to be a different self than his Father. Theories such as Ward’s (section 1.3 above), which make the Son a mere mode, make him something less than a self, whereas others (see section 1.6) make him a self, but the same self as his Father. Either way, the Son seems not to be qualified either to mediate between God and humankind, or to be a friend of the one he calls “Father”. Again, some traditional incarnation theories seems to assume that the eternal Son who becomes incarnate (who enters into a hypostatic union with a complete human nature) is the same self as the historical man Jesus of Nazareth. But no mere mode could be the same self as anything, and the New Testament seems to teach that this man was sent by another self, God.
Some one–self theories run into trouble about God’s relation to the cosmos. If God exists necessarily and is essentially the creator and the redeemer of created beings in need of salvation, this implies it is not possible for there to be no creation, or for there to be no fallen creatures; God could not have avoided creating beings in need of redemption. Indeed, God is uncaused and is unlike creation and have easily and be outside both time and space. Relative identity doesn’t cut it. In conclusion, the Ratzinger-Nichols conception of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, as well as the broader Christian doctrines of the incarnation and trinity, present philosophical challenges that call into question the very nature of God and His attributes. By examining these concepts through the principles of phenomenology, Mulla Sadra's teachings, and the immutability and limitlessness of God, we can begin to unravel the complexities of these theological doctrines and their implications on our understanding of the divine.

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

The Trinitarian theology posited in David Bentley Hart's book "The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth" and supported by theologians such as Amiroutzes, John of Segovia, John of Damascus, Ramon Llull, and Riccoldo da Montecroce poses a multitude of philosophical challenges that must be scrutinized and brought to light. While the concept of transubstantiation in the Eucharist as expounded upon by Ratzinger-Nichols suggests a transformation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ while maintaining the external appearance of bread and wine, it raises fundamental questions about the nature of existence, the immutability of God, and the limitlessness of His divine nature. From a phenomenological standpoint, the essence of an object is understood to be inherent in its appearance and properties. To claim that the substance of bread and wine can change while its accidents remain the same defies the very principles of phenomenology and Mulla Sadra's concept of existentialism, which posits that existence is the essence of beings. This contradiction challenges the very nature of existence itself and presents a formidable obstacle to the concept of transubstantiation.

Moreover, the notion that God can undergo a transformation in the Eucharist contradicts the belief in the immutability and unchanging nature of God as put forth by many philosophical traditions. If God is immutable and unchanging, how can He alter His essence and take on a different form in the Eucharist? The idea that God's essence can change or be altered goes against His very nature as the eternal and unchanging being. Additionally, the concept of accidents or change occurring in God suggests limitations on His infinite nature, which contradicts the belief in His omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. How can God be confined to physical forms such as bread and wine if He is truly omnipresent and transcendent? The concept of transubstantiation threatens the limitlessness of God and raises doubts about His divine nature.

Drawing upon late Ashari Atomism and existentialism, we can further challenge the concept of transubstantiation and the broader Christian doctrines of the incarnation and trinity. The idea that physical substances can undergo a complete transformation into the divine essence of God contradicts the principles of atomism, which posit that all physical substances are composed of indivisible particles. The incarnation of God in human form also poses significant philosophical challenges, as it suggests a limitation on God's omnipotence and transcendence. The belief in three distinct persons in one God challenges the idea of God's limitlessness and implies a division within the divine essence, which raises fundamental questions about the nature of God and His attributes.

In conclusion, the Ratzinger-Nichols conception of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, as well as the broader Christian doctrines of the incarnation and trinity, present philosophical challenges that call into question the very nature of God and His attributes. By examining these concepts through the principles of phenomenology, Mulla Sadra's teachings, and the immutability and limitlessness of God, we can begin to unravel the complexities of these theological doctrines and their implications on our understanding of the divine. The concept of transubstantiation and the Trinitarian theology must be critically analyzed and scrutinized in light of these philosophical challenges to deepen our understanding of the divine and the nature of God.