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 trinitarian argument is invalid (having true premises... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    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.The 'is' in premises 1 and 2 should be read as 'is the same being as'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under this reading, the relation in the premises differs from the relation in the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relative identity requires that 'same F' relations be transitive within a sortal kind, so 'same being' must be transitive across all three Persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Father, Son, and Spirit are each the same being as God, then by transitivity they are the same being as each other, collapsing into Sabellianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The relative identity solution thus either preserves validity and generates heresy, or blocks transitivity and abandons standard identity logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peter Geach's relative identity framework, the source of this trinitarian strategy, still requires that no two distinct things bear the same-F relation under a single sortal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Person' is a genuine sortal, then 'same Person' must obey Leibniz's Law within that sortal, making the Father and Son discernible as Persons but not as beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This sortal asymmetry entails that the Trinity contains numerically distinct substances sharing a nature, which is indistinguishable from the tritheism orthodoxy rejects.
      ?

      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

    If 'Person' is a genuine sortal, then 'same Person' must obey Leibniz's Law with...If the Father, Son, and Spirit are each the same being as God, then by transitiv...Peter Geach's relative identity framework, the source of this trinitarian strate...Relative identity requires that 'same F' relations be transitive within a sortal...
    +5 moreShow less
    The 'is' in premise 3 should be read as 'is the same divine Person as'.The 'is' in premises 1 and 2 should be read as 'is the same being as'.The relative identity solution thus either preserves validity and generates here...This sortal asymmetry entails that the Trinity contains numerically distinct sub...Under this reading, the relation in the premises differs from the relation in th...

    Similar

    Popular Latin trinitarianism is incoherent80%These are claims any trinitarian should deny.77%Van Inwagen's theory has not demonstrated the consistency of trinitari...77%The argument from premises 1, 2, and 5 to statement 6 is either sound ...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    The relative identity trinitarian argues that one should read...
    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.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The source passage explicitly states that under the relative identity reading (where 'is' means different things in the premises vs. the conclusion), one may say the argument is invalid with true premises but a false conclusion, and the extracted premises accurately capture this reasoning.

    Confidence: This is the relative identity trinitarian's argument. The conclusion is presented as the position of that theorist, clearly entailed by the text.

    Details

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