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
    Van Inwagen has not shown the logical possibility of any ... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Van Inwagen has not shown the logical possibility of any Trinity theory.

    Trinity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Inwagen's relative identity logic permits formally consistent trinitarian claims that map onto Vohánka's demonstrably impossible non-theological analogues.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a logical framework validates both possible and impossible proposition-sets without distinction, it lacks the discriminatory power needed to establish possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Establishing logical possibility requires more than formal non-contradiction within a system; it requires the system's consistency rules to track metaphysical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Priest and Berto's work on impossible worlds shows that formal consistency within a non-classical logic does not preclude the described scenario from obtaining in no possible world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Inwagen provides no independent metaphysical criterion—beyond relative identity logic itself—to confirm that his trinitarian models are instantiated in any possible world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Just because a set of claims can't be proven inconsistent in van Inwagen's relative identity logic, it doesn't follow that such claims don't imply a contradiction, or that it is metaphysically possible that all the claims are true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Vohánka concocts a short non-theological story whose claims translate into claims of the same form in relative identity logic, and yet are clearly logically impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Formal consistency in relative identity logic does not guarantee logical possibility.
      ?

      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

    Establishing logical possibility requires more than formal non-contradiction wit...Formal consistency in relative identity logic does not guarantee logical possibi...If a logical framework validates both possible and impossible proposition-sets w...Just because a set of claims can't be proven inconsistent in van Inwagen's relat...
    +5 moreShow less
    Priest and Berto's work on impossible worlds shows that formal consistency withi...Sharing a form in relative identity logic with a logically possible proposition ...Van Inwagen provides no independent metaphysical criterion—beyond relative ident...Van Inwagen's relative identity logic permits formally consistent trinitarian cl...Vohánka concocts a short non-theological story whose claims translate into claim...

    Similar

    Swinburne's theory of the Trinity should be rejected or is seriously p...78%Hasker's theory is problematic because the divine nature/soul, which i...77%Van Inwagen's theory has not demonstrated the consistency of trinitari...75%The Incarnation is a paradox that cannot be grounded in reason75%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    Vlastimil Vohánka (2013)
    View source passageHide passage
    Vlastimil Vohánka (2013) argues that van Inwagen has done nothing to show the logical possibility of any Trinity theory. Just because a set of claims can’t be proven inconsistent in van Inwagen’s relative identity logic, it doesn’t follow that such claims don’t imply a contradiction, or that it is metaphysically possible that all the claims are true. At one point van Inwagen tells a short non-theological story whose claims, when translated into his relative identity logic, have the same forms as the Trinity propositions. The story, he argues, is clearly not self-contradictory; thus, he conclud...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises directly correspond to Vohánka's argument as presented in the passage, and they rationally support the conclusion that van Inwagen has not shown logical possibility, by undermining both his formal consistency approach and his argument-by-analogy strategy.

    Confidence: High confidence. The passage clearly presents Vohánka's structured argument against van Inwagen's claim.

    Details

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