I have seemed to call myself an ‘atheist’ in a post today: but the question requires dealing with atheist/theist incoherence, and the result is garbage in/garbage out. The link is to an old post, which shows the curious irony of the question: the doctrine of the Trinity was originally a garbled version of the ‘atheist’ Samkhya triadic analysis, with a high level triad as the veil of the ‘One’, which was unknowable. This lost and underground influence on the Xtian legacy hints at something now lost: an unknown spiritual environment in antiquity, one that probably included the influence of Indian religious figures (known to have entered the Occidental oikoumene at many points, i.e. the references to ‘gymnosophists’, i.e. Jain monks/yogis), and there the encounter with the powerful Indian legacy may be what generates the doctrine of the Trinity. Indian spiritual figures must be still shaking their heads in wonder at the sophistical face lift given the neutral, non-theistic, primordial triad (in the cascade of (96, 48, 24, 12, 6, 3: note that it stops at three, veiling the ‘one’, which isn’t ‘god’, but the ultimate unknown beyond knowability or manifestation, the original form of the specturm of sentiments that later were tokened as ‘god’, but not by Samkhyaists). You can just guess what happened here. And there were clearly many skeptics on the theism question, even inside early Xtinaity. The cultural influence of Samkhya suggests that this is so, but not conclusively. This would have been a very sophisticated understanding, one that bypasses the overly concretized belief structures of theists (and atheists).. Meanwhile I can’t credit later/current Xtian beliefs in the ‘Trinity’. These beliefs are a dilemma for those who give up religion in disgust. That the idea was originally atheist is the strange irony of the matter.