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 The divine nature implies the existence of three relational qua-objects, which are the Persons of the Trinity.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A nature, as an abstract universal, cannot itself be the ontological ground of distinct subsistent relations without collapsing into tritheism or modalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aquinas's own doctrine of divine simplicity entails that no real distinctions obtain within the divine essence, making relational qua-objects internal to that essence formally incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the divine nature 'implies' three objects, the nature is prior to the Persons, contradicting the Nicene insistence that the Persons are not derived from an antecedent divine substrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Qua-objects, as introduced by Fine, are constituted by an object under a restriction to certain properties, but divine persons are not the divine nature restricted—they are fully divine, making the qua-object model categorically inapplicable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Self-understanding in an absolutely simple being generates at most a reflexive identity, not a numerically distinct relatum, as Spinoza's monist critique of personal distinctions in God demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God (the divine nature) understands all things through himself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God is essentially omniscient and essentially self-understanding.
      ?

      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.