Alright, so you seem more familiar to the concept than most. Here's the deal. Imagine with me the whole existence of things prior to creation and with the traditional Muslim/Jewish conception of God. There is one God, who is one individual, one person, no complex trinity crap. Is this God perfect in and of himself? Prior to creation, does he have innate all that which we would call good, or could God be better than his current state by creating the things he lacks? I think the later is more intuitive, specifically due to the relationship thing Phattonez has been talking about. Relationships are good, and a strict-monotheism says that God is not innately relational.
So, Christianity has the solution. We say that God is innately relational. In the beginning, prior to creation, God was not without relationship. The relationship is innate to him, so he's never without that particular good, thus we can say that God is perfect in and of himself.
Absolutely, here's the thing, Prior to creation there is no time itself, meaning there can be no relation, creation IS part of God being God, InFact God is not God without creation, God is just Being, all that is. God itself is a relational term, so God becomes God to his creation when he creates (Hagel pointed this out)
As far as positing a Trinity prior to creation, that's solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Trying to anthropomorphise God to put Our standards on him prior to creation is pointless, all we know is the God of creation, and what that God has revealed to us in scripture, that's what we have to go by, and if his scripture says he is an individual personal being, then that's what we have to Accept.
We shouldn't prioritize philosophical concepts that are not taken from scripture, and also we have no real capacity to understand, since we only know God as the God of creation.
But the real question is "how". How can relations be entirely internal? And that is why we distinguish Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are the same individual, but "person" is coming from a Koine Greek word associated to theater. The same individual often played multiple roles. A young boy would play the peasant kid as well as the princess. So in the play, the one boy was two persons. Equally, the one God, who is one individual, is three persons.
However, let me refute modalism before Phattonez calls me a heretic. God is not just putting on different masks (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and acting out some great, cosmic play. Instead, the only way to conceive of God as innately relational is to understand that God, the one individual, is on stage as three persons simultaneously, and those persons are interacting with each other. Sounds a bit schizophrenic, but that's because of my analogy usage. There are innately three persons within the one individual which have relationships with each other and are all wholly God.
This is a very interesting concept, I don't think Phattonez should Call you a heretic since what you're describing is basically Latin Trinitarianism.
We have to remember that if you're going to appeal to the koine Greek, it must be in a scriptural context, so if persons of the alleged Trinity are being mentionted as persons in Koine we need to cite the scripture to discuss it, the same individual, otherwise the semantics would be irrelevant.
Now, we would have to in order to deal With this issue correctly discuss the nature of a relationship, and what the relationship is of the persons to the individual.
So for example is a relationship something that individuals have With each other? Or persons? What is the distinction between an individual and a person? Does not a relationship demand individual and seperate Points of view?
ALso if this is posited prior to creation we have a problem, all being one individual there would be no way to distinguish the persons, since the "stage" doesn't exist. The Son, holy spirit and father only become distinguishable in a Latin Trinitarian system in their interactions With creation and their role in the purpose of God, so the problem (which I believe is a false problem) isn't actually solved.
Not to mention the lack of scriptural evidence for such a system.
But I appreciate the thought put into the response.