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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that It is impossible for God to be a single Person; the concept of a unipersonal God is incoherent.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Perfect love does not require an eternal co-equal object; it requires only the disposition and capacity to love, which God can exercise freely in creation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's self-thinking thought (Metaphysics XII) demonstrates that a perfectly self-sufficient divine intellect achieves its highest activity in self-contemplation, not in relation to another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating the eternal exercise of love with love's necessary precondition smuggles a temporal model of love into a discussion of atemporal divine nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Islamic and Jewish philosophical theology, from Maimonides through Al-Ghazali, consistently demonstrates that strict divine unity is coherent and even rationally preferable to plurality of persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument illicitly assumes that God's essential properties must be fully actualized eternally in the same mode they would be in time, which begs the question against classical divine simplicity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must eternally be giving himself in love to another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God is free not to create, so the object of his necessary love need not be a creature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the other to whom God's love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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