Muslim philosopher Imran Aijaz used this argument against the trinity
if X, Y and Z were contingent entities, then how can contingent + contingent + contingent = non-contingent? - since, if all three were necessary beings *on their own*,they would have no need for the other two. If X was a necessary being, say,it would necessarily exclude Y and Z (necessity is a sufficient condition for excluding Y and Z). The eternity of three necessary beings causes more problems because, should such a thing be the cause, they would be three *distinct* beings - i.e. the scenario would be tritheistic
A polytheist might well believe in 3 distinct sentiment beings with godlike power.That's precisely what christians say the trinity entains.Admittedly the polythiest would assent to the sentence "there are 3 gods" and christians wouldn't, but in terms of the content of your belief s , there is nothing between you.How would the doctrine of trinity be any different if it were instead claimed that the 3 gods always agreed each other, but each had its own distinct "essence" and yet the 3 still formed a single commitee, called "god"?It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies.i recommend consulting a dictionary if christians dispute this. is the trinity indistinguisble to external observers? well, jesus died on the cross; the father didn't, jesus was once a baby boy; the spirit wasn't. the deciples were supposed to have been filled with the spirit, not the father. the bible depicts the members of the trinity having conversation with each other, and even asking each other question.