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 view on which there are three divine beings and the who... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Swinburne's account is hard to distinguish from tritheism rather than monotheism.

    A view on which there are three divine beings and the whole they compose is not itself divine does not clearly count as monotheism.

    Trinity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Trinity

    Related

    On Swinburne's account, there are three things each of which is divine.Swinburne's account is hard to distinguish from tritheism rather than monotheism...The whole (the Trinity) that consists of those three Persons is not itself divin...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Trinity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The whole (the Trinity) that consists of those three Persons is not it...82%The theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't deny that there ...81%On Trinity monotheism, God is not identical to any single personal bei...81%The divine nature is not absolutely identical to any of the three divi...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    The suggestion is that the tradition is somewhat confused, but that charitably, we should think its talk of “one God” should be understood as referring to the Trinity. (However, see the opening line of the Nicene creed.) What sort of thing is this Trinity? It is not a divine Person, and is not a thing (person or not) with the divine essence. Rather, it is a thing of which the three divine beings (selves, persons) are proper parts (425). Despite this complex entity not having the divine essence (and so, not being a god), Swinburne sometimes refers to it as “God himself” (424). He argues that th...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective