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
    The account is not polytheism. — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The account is not polytheism.

    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.Only the Trinity is God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is a necessary unity of the three Persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If three distinct Persons each fully possess divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.), then three divine beings exist by standard individuation criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Asserting their 'necessary unity' does not eliminate distinct divine subjects any more than asserting necessary unity among the Olympian gods would collapse Greek polytheism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume and empiricist critics argue that numerical identity requires indiscernibility: if the Father is not the Son (as orthodoxy requires), they cannot be numerically identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A collection of non-identical divine beings, however necessarily unified in will or substance, satisfies the functional definition of polytheism that matters for religious ontology.
      ?

      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 collection of non-identical divine beings, however necessarily unified in will...Asserting their 'necessary unity' does not eliminate distinct divine subjects an...Hume and empiricist critics argue that numerical identity requires indiscernibil...If three distinct Persons each fully possess divine attributes (omnipotence, omn...
    +2 moreShow less
    Only the Trinity is God.There is a necessary unity of the three Persons.

    Similar

    Swinburne's account is hard to distinguish from tritheism rather than ...80%The theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't deny that there ...76%On Trinity monotheism, God is not identical to any single personal bei...73%A view on which there are three divine beings and the whole they compo...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    The account is not polytheism because only the Trinity is God, and because of the necessary unity of the three
    View source passageHide passage
    The account is not polytheism because only the Trinity is God, and because of the necessary unity of the three (160, 167). But isn’t “Every divine person is a god” true by definition? No, because “divine” can mean relating to a god (without being a god), and in this common meaning the Persons of this theory are “divine”. Similarly, a hand can be “human” without itself being a human being (165).
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The source passage explicitly states "The account is not polytheism because only the Trinity is God, and because of the necessary unity of the three," which directly matches the extracted argument's conclusion and premises.

    Confidence: Clear argument with explicit premises and conclusion.

    Details

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