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 three-self theory of the Trinity like Swinburne's is fa... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A three-self theory of the Trinity like Swinburne's is false.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The biblical monotheistic formula 'the Lord our God is one' (Deut 6:4) predicates numerical oneness of a single divine subject, not unity among three.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Swinburne's three-self model requires reinterpreting 'one God' as mere cooperation or love-unity, which lacks exegetical warrant in the source texts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory requiring systematic reinterpretation of foundational theological data to avoid contradiction is, by Ockhamist parsimony standards, less credible than unitarian alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne's model entails that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct centers of consciousness with potentially divergent preferences, making trinitarian action conceptually fragile.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Peter van Inwagen and others have shown that social trinitarianism of this type is functionally indistinguishable from polytheism absent an ad hoc 'one substance' constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that requires ad hoc metaphysical constraints to avoid entailing polytheism fails the criterion of theoretical elegance demanded by classical perfect-being theology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • If a three-self theory were true, one or more members of the Trinity would have wrongfully deceived us by leading us to falsely believe that there is only one divine self.
      ?

      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 theory requiring systematic reinterpretation of foundational theological data ...A theory that requires ad hoc metaphysical constraints to avoid entailing polyth...If a three-self theory were true, one or more members of the Trinity would have ...Peter van Inwagen and others have shown that social trinitarianism of this type ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Swinburne's model entails that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct centers ...Swinburne's three-self model requires reinterpreting 'one God' as mere cooperati...The biblical monotheistic formula 'the Lord our God is one' (Deut 6:4) predicate...

    Similar

    The theory neatly sidesteps a number of common objections to three-sel...88%If a three-self theory were true, one or more members of the Trinity w...86%Van Inwagen's theory remains neutral on the issue of identity, which a...79%The three Persons of the Trinity are three selves, not merely three mo...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    Tuggy (2004)
    View source passageHide passage
    Tuggy (2004) objects that if a three-self theory like Swinburne’s were true, it would seem that one or more members of the Trinity have wrongfully deceived us by leading us to falsely believe that there is only one divine self. He also argues that the New Testament writings assume that “God” and “the Father of Jesus” (in all but a few cases) co-refer, reflecting the assumption that God and the Father are numerically the same. (See also Tuggy 2014, 2019.) Denying this last claim, he argues, amounts to an uncharitable and unreasonable attribution of a serious confusion to the New Testament write...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage attributes to Tuggy the objection that a three-self theory would imply wrongful deception by members of the Trinity, which serves as a reductio-style attack on the truth of such a theory, and the extracted argument correctly captures this reasoning (though the implicit premise that such wrongful deception is unacceptable is left unstated).

    Confidence: Clearly stated objection by Tuggy against Swinburne's three-self theory.

    Details

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