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 theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't den... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Van Inwagen's impure relative identity trinitarianism is inadequate.

    The theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't deny that there are non-identical divine beings.

    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 impure relative identity trinitarian owes us a plausible and orthodox metaph...Van Inwagen hasn't provided such a story, staying as he has in the realm of logi...Van Inwagen's impure relative identity trinitarianism is inadequate.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Trinity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Swinburne's theory allows the possibility of more than one divine bein...84%A view on which there are three divine beings and the whole they compo...81%Swinburne's theory carries the serious price of allowing that a divine...80%Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/soul, which i...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    Michael Rea (2003) objects that by remaining neutral on the issue of identity, van Inwagen’s theory allows that the three Persons are (absolutely) non-identical, in which case “it is hard to see what it could possibly mean to say that they are the same being” (Rea 2003, 441). It seems that any things which are non-identical are not the same being. Thus, van Inwagen must assume that there is absolute identity, and deny that this relation holds between the Persons. Thus, van Inwagen has not demonstrated the consistency of (this version of) trinitarianism. Further, the theory doesn’t rule out pol...

    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