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
    Swinburne's account is hard to distinguish from tritheism... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Swinburne's account is hard to distinguish from tritheism rather than monotheism.

    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.On Swinburne's account, there are three things each of which is divine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The whole (the Trinity) that consists of those three Persons is not itself divine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A view on which there are three divine beings and the whole they compose is not itself divine does not clearly count as monotheism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Monotheism is better defined by unity of divine will, purpose, and mutual love than by numerical identity of divine substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Swinburne explicitly argues the three Persons are necessarily united in will and cooperative action, constituting a functional unity sufficient for monotheism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Tritheism historically denotes independent, potentially conflicting deities—a condition Swinburne's account of necessary divine love structurally precludes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The tritheism charge assumes that numerical plurality of divine persons entails the same kind of plurality as three distinct gods in polytheistic traditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Brian Leftow and others distinguish 'type monotheism' (one divine nature-type) from 'token monotheism' (one divine individual), and Swinburne's account satisfies type monotheism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dismissing type monotheism as insufficient requires independent argument that token monotheism is the only historically or philosophically legitimate criterion.
      ?

      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 view on which there are three divine beings and the whole they compose is not ...Brian Leftow and others distinguish 'type monotheism' (one divine nature-type) f...Dismissing type monotheism as insufficient requires independent argument that to...Monotheism is better defined by unity of divine will, purpose, and mutual love t...
    +5 moreShow less
    On Swinburne's account, there are three things each of which is divine.Swinburne explicitly argues the three Persons are necessarily united in will and...The tritheism charge assumes that numerical plurality of divine persons entails ...The whole (the Trinity) that consists of those three Persons is not itself divin...Tritheism historically denotes independent, potentially conflicting deities—a co...

    Similar

    On Trinity monotheism, God is not identical to any single personal bei...80%The account is not polytheism.80%A view on which there are three divine beings and the whole they compo...80%Van Inwagen's theory has not demonstrated the consistency of trinitari...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    It remains that there are three things here each of which is divine, and that this whole is not itself divine; it's hard to see why this is monotheism and not tritheism.
    View source passageHide passage
    The suggestion is that the tradition is somewhat confused, but that charitably, we should think its talk of “one God” should be understood as referring to the Trinity. (However, see the opening line of the Nicene creed.) What sort of thing is this Trinity? It is not a divine Person, and is not a thing (person or not) with the divine essence. Rather, it is a thing of which the three divine beings (selves, persons) are proper parts (425). Despite this complex entity not having the divine essence (and so, not being a god), Swinburne sometimes refers to it as “God himself” (424). He argues that th...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that there are three divine beings, that the Trinity lacks the divine essence (and so is not itself divine), and concludes "it's hard to see why this is monotheism and not tritheism," which directly matches the extracted premises and conclusion.

    Confidence: Clearly stated argument in the final sentence of the passage.

    Details

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