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
    It is unclear what constitutes the Persons in Hasker's ac... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is unclear what constitutes the Persons in Hasker's account.

    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.Hasker's 2010 account identifies Persons as 'individual minds' emergent from the divine nature, while his 2013 account treats them as modes of a single substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Emergent individuals and modes are categorically distinct metaphysical entities in the tradition running from Locke through contemporary trope theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory of divine Persons that oscillates between categorically distinct ontological kinds is not a single coherent account but multiple incompatible accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hasker invokes both Brian Leftow's 'one soul, three streams of consciousness' model and his own 'social trinity' framework in characterizing the Persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leftow's model entails numerical identity of the mental substance across Persons, while social trinitarianism requires three numerically distinct substances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Deploying constitutive concepts that presuppose contradictory identity conditions for the same entities demonstrates irreducible unclarity in the account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In various places Hasker says the Persons are constituted by the divine mind/soul, the concrete divine nature (a trope of divinity), and a single mental substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These would appear to be different claims.
      ?

      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 of divine Persons that oscillates between categorically distinct ontolo...Deploying constitutive concepts that presuppose contradictory identity condition...Emergent individuals and modes are categorically distinct metaphysical entities ...Hasker invokes both Brian Leftow's 'one soul, three streams of consciousness' mo...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hasker's 2010 account identifies Persons as 'individual minds' emergent from the...In various places Hasker says the Persons are constituted by the divine mind/sou...Leftow's model entails numerical identity of the mental substance across Persons...These would appear to be different claims.

    Similar

    The Father and the Son are really distinct and not really the same.78%Only the Trinity is God.75%The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be counted as one God74%The Father's generation of the Son doesn't explain the Son's existence...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    Daniel Howard-Snyder (2015b, 110)
    View source passageHide passage
    Daniel Howard-Snyder objects that Hasker’s talk of the nature “supporting” or “sustaining” the lives or “life-streams” of the Persons is unintelligible (2015b, 108–10). He also argues that it is unclear quite what constitutes the Persons, as in various places Hasker says that this is the divine mind/soul, the concrete divine nature (a trope of divinity), and a single mental substance–and these would appear to be different claims (110). Also, monotheism uncontroversially implies that there is exactly one god. But Hasker forbids saying that any of the Persons is a god. And by definition being a ...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises are directly stated in the source passage and rationally support the conclusion that it is unclear what constitutes the Persons, since Hasker offers seemingly different and potentially inconsistent characterizations.

    Confidence: Clearly stated objection.

    Details

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