Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Monotheism is better defined by unity of divine will, purpose, and mutual love than by numerical identity of divine substance.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Multiple beings with separate wills—even if perfectly aligned—constitutes polytheism by standard metaphysical definitions, not monotheism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Will and purpose are properties of substances; defining monotheism by will alone without numerical unity inverts the logical relationship between essence and attributes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This definition conflates monotheism with divine harmony; two gods perfectly coordinated in will would still be two gods, not one God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Trinitarian theology describes three distinct persons sharing one will and purpose, suggesting unity of will better captures monotheism's essence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine substance is metaphysically abstract and inaccessible to human knowledge, while unified divine purpose is theologically coherent and practical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many religious traditions emphasize divine attributes like justice and mercy acting in concert, defining monotheism through coordinated divine intention.
?
How convincing is this?
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.