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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Van Inwagen has not shown the logical possibility of any Trinity theory.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.