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 'is' in premise 3 should be read as 'is the same divi... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The trinitarian argument is invalid (having true premises but a false conclusion).

    The 'is' in premise 3 should be read as 'is the same divine Person as'.

    Trinity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Trinity

    Related

    The 'is' in premises 1 and 2 should be read as 'is the same being as'.The trinitarian argument is invalid (having true premises but a false conclusion...Under this reading, the relation in the premises differs from the relation in th...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Trinity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The 'is' in premises 1 and 2 should be read as 'is the same being as'.86%If the three Persons are absolutely non-identical, it is hard to see w...73%'Every divine person is a god' is not true by definition.73%The Father, Son, and Spirit cannot fail to be related by this shared d...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    If each occurrence of “is” here is interpreted as identity (“absolute” or non-relative identity), then this argument is indisputably valid. Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to one another. The relative identity trinitarian argues that one should read the “is” in 1 and 2 as meaning “is the same being as” and the “is” in 3 as meaning “is the same divine Person as”. Doing this, one may say that the argument is invalid, having true premises but a false conclusion.

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective