Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A solitary divine Person could not flourish. — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A solitary divine Person could not flourish.

    Trinity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is inconceivable that a divine Person should flourish without loving another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The love of finite selves alone would not be sufficient for a divine Person's flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A solitary divine Person would have no other divine Person to love.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Classical theism holds that God is perfectly self-sufficient and actus purus, requiring no external relation for maximal flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's self-thinking thought (Metaphysics Lambda) models divine perfection as reflexive intellection, not interpersonal love.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If God's flourishing required another, this would introduce dependency incompatible with divine aseity and omniperfection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Premise P1 conflates a contingent human psychological need for relationship with a necessary condition for any form of flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mystic traditions from Plotinus to Meister Eckhart locate the highest good in self-contained contemplative unity, not relational love.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An omniscient being's perfect self-knowledge may itself constitute a sufficiently rich intentional object for complete flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Trinity

    Related

    A solitary divine Person would have no other divine Person to love.An omniscient being's perfect self-knowledge may itself constitute a sufficientl...Aristotle's self-thinking thought (Metaphysics Lambda) models divine perfection ...Classical theism holds that God is perfectly self-sufficient and actus purus, re...
    +5 moreShow less
    If God's flourishing required another, this would introduce dependency incompati...It is inconceivable that a divine Person should flourish without loving another.Mystic traditions from Plotinus to Meister Eckhart locate the highest good in se...Premise P1 conflates a contingent human psychological need for relationship with...The love of finite selves alone would not be sufficient for a divine Person's fl...

    Similar

    A solitary divine Person would lack glory.91%A solitary divine Person would have no other divine Person to confer g...89%A truly solitary divine Person would not be divine.88%A solitary divine Person would have no other divine Person to love.87%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    Layman
    View source passageHide passage
    Thus, given that God must be perfect independently of creation, “a truly solitary person would not be divine, for it would not be perfectly loving” (154). Additionally, Layman argues that it is “inconceivable” that a divine Person should flourish without loving another, and that surely only the love of finite selves would not be enough (154–5). A solitary divine Person would be “an appropriate object of pity” (155). Again, Layman argues that the Bible suggests that a divine Person must have not only splendor (exalted attributes) but also glory, “something at least akin to fame–a kind of recogn...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage states it is "inconceivable" that a divine Person should flourish without loving another and that love of finite selves alone would not suffice, which together with the implicit premise that a solitary divine Person lacks another divine Person to love, rationally supports the conclusion that a solitary divine Person could not flourish.

    Confidence: Explicit reasoning from Layman.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit