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
    Therefore premises 1 and 2, which apparently treat Father... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Premises 1 and 2 should be denied by a one-self trinitarian

    Therefore premises 1 and 2, which apparently treat Father and Son as selves, should be denied

    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

    A one-self trinitarian holds that there is one self which is GodOn a one-self trinitarian view, neither the Father nor the Son is identical to t...Premises 1 and 2 should be denied by a one-self trinitarianRather, the Father and Son are each modes of God, not independent selves

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Trinity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The argument from premises 1 and 2 to conclusion 3 cannot be rejected ...78%If the Father and the Son are distinct selves rather than modes, then ...75%Premises 1 and 2 should be denied by a one-self trinitarian75%The assumption that distinct and incommunicable intellectual acts and ...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    Creedal orthodoxy requires 1–3 and 5, yet 1–3 imply the unorthodox 4, and 1, 2 and 5 imply the unorthodox (and necessarily false) statement 6. So what to do? Lines 1–4 seem perfectly clear, and the inference from 1–3 to 4 seems valid. So too does the inference from 1, 2, and 5 to 6. Why should 6 be thought impossible? The idea is that whatever its precise meaning, “generation” is some sort of causing or originating, something in principle nothing can do to itself. One would expect Leftow, as a o

    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