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 argument from premises 1–3 to statement 4 is either s... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument from premises 1–3 to statement 4 is either sound but not heretical, or unsound due to invalidity

    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.Premises 1 and 2 are unclear and admit multiple interpretations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under one interpretation the argument is sound but the conclusion is not heretical
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under another interpretation the argument is invalid because statement 4 does not follow from premises 1–3
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A dilemma framed as exhaustive may still be false if a third option exists: the argument is sound AND the conclusion is heretical by orthodox standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nicene orthodoxy defines heresy functionally—if a valid argument entails three distinct Gods, it is heretical regardless of semantic reinterpretation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sabellianism and tritheism are both condemned heresies, so 'not heretical' cannot be secured merely by choosing one interpretation over another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peter Geach and Peter van Inwagen argue that relative identity dissolves the argument's invalidity charge by supplying a coherent reading where (4) does follow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relative identity renders the argument valid and the conclusion orthodox, the original dilemma collapses since it assumed validity and orthodoxy cannot both hold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A dilemma is only as strong as the mutual exclusivity of its horns; showing a coherent reading that is both valid and non-heretical defeats the claim entirely.
      ?

      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 dilemma framed as exhaustive may still be false if a third option exists: the ...A dilemma is only as strong as the mutual exclusivity of its horns; showing a co...If relative identity renders the argument valid and the conclusion orthodox, the...Nicene orthodoxy defines heresy functionally—if a valid argument entails three d...
    +5 moreShow less
    Peter Geach and Peter van Inwagen argue that relative identity dissolves the arg...Premises 1 and 2 are unclear and admit multiple interpretationsSabellianism and tritheism are both condemned heresies, so 'not heretical' canno...Under another interpretation the argument is invalid because statement 4 does no...Under one interpretation the argument is sound but the conclusion is not heretic...

    Similar

    The argument from premises 1, 2, and 5 to statement 6 is either sound ...91%Under another interpretation the argument is invalid because statement...88%Under another interpretation the argument is invalid because statement...78%Under one interpretation the argument is sound but the conclusion is n...76%

    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