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
    Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/soul, which is not God, would be the ultimate reality rather than God.

    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.In classical theism (Aquinas, ST Ia q.3), ultimate reality requires aseity: existing through nothing prior to itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hasker's divine soul, as the ontological source from which the Persons derive, possesses a prior explanatory ground for God's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any entity with a prior explanatory ground fails the aseity condition and therefore cannot itself be the ultimate reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian metaphysics distinguishes the primary substance (the concrete individual) from the secondary substance (the universal nature), treating the individual as ontologically basic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Hasker's emergent model, the divine nature functions as a secondary-substance-like universal that precedes and generates the primary divine individuals (the Persons).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A secondary-substance analog that generates primary substances occupies a higher ontological tier, making it, not those substances, the ultimate reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.On Hasker's theory, the soul (a.k.a. the divine nature) is the source of the Persons and so of God (the Trinity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2."God is the ultimate reality" seems to be true by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the divine nature/soul is the source of God but is not itself God, then something other than God would be the ultimate reality, contradicting the definitional truth that God is the ultimate reality.
      ?

      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

    "God is the ultimate reality" seems to be true by definition.A secondary-substance analog that generates primary substances occupies a higher...Any entity with a prior explanatory ground fails the aseity condition and theref...Aristotelian metaphysics distinguishes the primary substance (the concrete indiv...
    +5 moreShow less
    Hasker's divine soul, as the ontological source from which the Persons derive, p...If the divine nature/soul is the source of God but is not itself God, then somet...In classical theism (Aquinas, ST Ia q.3), ultimate reality requires aseity: exis...On Hasker's emergent model, the divine nature functions as a secondary-substance...On Hasker's theory, the soul (a.k.a. the divine nature) is the source of the Per...

    Similar

    If the divine nature/soul is the source of God but is not itself God, ...91%On Hasker's theory, the soul (a.k.a. the divine nature) is the source ...85%Swinburne's theory carries the serious price of allowing that a divine...85%Swinburne's theory of the Trinity should be rejected or is seriously p...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    Leftow's objection regarding ultimate reality
    View source passageHide passage
    Leftow also objects that the sentence “God is the ultimate reality” seems to be true by definition. But on Hasker’s theory, this soul (a.k.a. the divine nature), which is not God, would be the ultimate reality, being the source of the Persons and so of God (the Trinity) (12). Again, Leftow objects that this theory is not monotheistic; rather, the theory features three deities which we can’t describe as such because there is one object (the divine nature/soul) which constitutes them (15).
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises accurately capture Leftow's objection as presented in the source passage: that on Hasker's theory, the divine nature/soul (not God) would be the ultimate reality, contradicting the definitional truth that God is the ultimate reality, and these premises logically support the conclusion that Hasker's theory is problematic.

    Confidence: Clear argument explicitly stated in the text.

    Details

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