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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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