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 is not absolutely identical to any of the three divine persons

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Augustine and Aquinas, God is absolutely simple, meaning the divine nature, existence, and persons cannot be really distinct ontological items.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the divine nature were non-identical to the persons, this would introduce a real distinction in God, violating divine simplicity as classically formulated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Classical theism therefore requires that each person just is the divine nature, making absolute identity, not non-identity, the theologically orthodox position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relative identity theorists like Peter Geach hold that identity statements are always sortal-relative, not absolute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If identity is always relative to a kind, then 'the Father is the same God as the divine nature' can be true without entailing numerical absolute identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's conclusion that non-identity follows from hylomorphic distinctions presupposes absolute identity theory, which relative identity theory coherently denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The divine nature is a simple substance and a property, not a hylomorphic compound
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are hylomorphic compounds, not simple substances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A simple substance and a compound substance are not identical
      ?

      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.