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 neatly sidesteps a number of common objections... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The theory neatly sidesteps a number of common objections to three-self theories.

    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.In this theory, God is a self and not merely a group or a composite object which is less than a self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.As a literal self, personal pronouns may be literally used of God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This group which is a 'he' can have the divine attributes which imply being a self, such as omniscience and moral perfection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A group-self that grounds divine pronoun use still faces Plantinga's grounding objection: numerical identity of the one God requires more than collective selfhood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God is a self in virtue of being a unified group, the unity relation between persons must itself be explained, generating a regress or an unexplained primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swinburne and Leftow argue that any theory positing a group-self risks making the Trinity's unity merely Cambridge unity, not genuine ontological oneness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Classical theism, from Augustine through Aquinas, requires divine simplicity such that God's selfhood cannot be constituted by or dependent on relational composition.
      ?

      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 group-self that grounds divine pronoun use still faces Plantinga's grounding o...As a literal self, personal pronouns may be literally used of God.Classical theism, from Augustine through Aquinas, requires divine simplicity suc...If God is a self in virtue of being a unified group, the unity relation between ...
    +3 moreShow less
    In this theory, God is a self and not merely a group or a composite object which...Swinburne and Leftow argue that any theory positing a group-self risks making th...This group which is a 'he' can have the divine attributes which imply being a se...

    Similar

    A three-self theory of the Trinity like Swinburne's is false.88%If a three-self theory were true, one or more members of the Trinity w...83%Van Inwagen's theory remains neutral on the issue of identity, which a...79%The three Persons of the Trinity are three selves, not merely three mo...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    McIntosh
    View source passageHide passage
    McIntosh argues that the theory neatly sidesteps a number of common objections to three-self theories: here, God is a self and not merely a group or a composite object which is less than a self. In contrast with three-self theories, as a literal self, personal pronouns may be literally used of him. And this group which is a “he” can have the divine attributes which imply being a self, such as omniscience and moral perfection. (See sections 2.4, 2.5.) It also, McIntosh argues, either falsifies or casts doubt on the key premise in Tuggy’s divine deception argument against three-self theories (...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that McIntosh argues the theory sidesteps common objections to three-self theories, and then lists these three points as the reasons why, making the extracted argument faithfully present in the source.

    Confidence: Clear argumentative structure attributed to McIntosh.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit