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
    Premises 1 and 2 should be denied by a one-self trinitarian — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Premises 1 and 2 should be denied by a one-self trinitarian

    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.A one-self trinitarian holds that there is one self which is God
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a one-self trinitarian view, neither the Father nor the Son is identical to the one self which is God
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rather, the Father and Son are each modes of God, not independent selves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The creeds explicitly predicate properties of the Father and Son as distinct subjects, not merely as modal expressions of a single subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Father and Son are mere modes rather than genuine subjects, the Incarnation becomes incoherent, since a mode cannot literally take on flesh and suffer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the one-self view generates Sabellian heresy precisely by denying the distinct subject-hood that premises 1 and 2 correctly attribute to Father and Son.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relative identity solutions (following Geach) allow Father and Son to be the same God without being the same person, preserving premise-level distinctions without modal collapse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relative identity preserves the logical structure of premises 1 and 2 while avoiding contradiction, then denying those premises is unnecessary and explanatorily costly.
      ?

      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 one-self trinitarian holds that there is one self which is GodIf Father and Son are mere modes rather than genuine subjects, the Incarnation b...If relative identity preserves the logical structure of premises 1 and 2 while a...On a one-self trinitarian view, neither the Father nor the Son is identical to t...
    +5 moreShow less
    Rather, the Father and Son are each modes of God, not independent selvesRelative identity solutions (following Geach) allow Father and Son to be the sam...The creeds explicitly predicate properties of the Father and Son as distinct sub...Therefore premises 1 and 2, which apparently treat Father and Son as selves, sho...Therefore the one-self view generates Sabellian heresy precisely by denying the ...

    Similar

    These are claims any trinitarian should deny.82%A one-self trinitarian holds that there is one self which is God78%On a one-self trinitarian view, neither the Father nor the Son is iden...77%Therefore premises 1 and 2, which apparently treat Father and Son as s...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    Creedal orthodoxy requires 1–3 and 5, yet 1–3 imply the unorthodox 4, and 1, 2 and 5 imply the unorthodox (and necessarily false) statement 6. So what to do? Lines 1–4 seem perfectly clear, and the inference from 1–3 to 4 seems valid. So too does the inference from 1, 2, and 5 to 6. Why should 6 be thought impossible? The idea is that whatever its precise meaning, “generation” is some sort of causing or originating, something in principle nothing can do to itself. One would expect Leftow, as a o
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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