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
    God can be considered 'personal' even if God is not ident... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    God can be considered 'personal' even if God is not identical to any personal being

    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.On Trinity monotheism, God is not identical to any single personal being
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Having personal parts is sufficient for something to be considered 'personal'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God has personal parts (the persons of the Trinity)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Predicate transfer from parts to wholes commits the fallacy of composition unless the predicate is specifically distributive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Personhood is a non-distributive predicate: a committee of persons is not itself a person in the morally and metaphysically relevant sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, God having personal parts does not entail that God is personal in any theologically or philosophically meaningful sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Classical theism, from Aquinas through the Thomistic tradition, holds that God is absolutely simple and cannot be a composite of parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God has no parts, then God cannot derive personhood from having personal parts, undermining the Trinity monotheism strategy entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any account of divine personhood must be compatible with divine simplicity, which rules out mereological grounding of divine attributes.
      ?

      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

    Any account of divine personhood must be compatible with divine simplicity, whic...Classical theism, from Aquinas through the Thomistic tradition, holds that God i...God has personal parts (the persons of the Trinity)Having personal parts is sufficient for something to be considered 'personal'
    +5 moreShow less
    If God has no parts, then God cannot derive personhood from having personal part...On Trinity monotheism, God is not identical to any single personal beingPersonhood is a non-distributive predicate: a committee of persons is not itself...Predicate transfer from parts to wholes commits the fallacy of composition unles...Therefore, God having personal parts does not entail that God is personal in any...

    Similar

    Having personal parts is sufficient for something to be considered 'pe...85%As a literal self, personal pronouns may be literally used of God.80%On Trinity monotheism, God is not identical to any single personal bei...79%God has personal parts (the persons of the Trinity)78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    Craig replies to Howard-Snyder’s objection to the Cerberus analogy that the claim that it represents three dogs is “astonishing”, as we all speak of two headed snakes, turtles and such (Craig 2003, 102). While on Trinity monotheism God isn’t identical to any personal being, it doesn’t follow that God isn’t “personal”. He is personal in the sense of having personal parts. Further, the view that God isn’t a self
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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