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's relative identity logic permits formally co... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    Van Inwagen's relative identity logic permits formally consistent trinitarian claims that map onto Vohánka's demonstrably impossible non-theological analogues.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Relative identity allows 'x is identical to y relative to sortal F' without absolute identity, enabling three persons to be one God relative to divine nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Vohánka's non-theological analogues fail because they lack the metaphysical uniqueness of divine properties that ground theological relative identity claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Formal consistency differs from metaphysical possibility; Van Inwagen's logic shows Trinity avoids logical contradiction even if analogues remain impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If non-theological analogues are demonstrably impossible, the relative identity framework explaining both equally well suggests it obscures rather than solves the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Formal consistency in a logic system doesn't establish that the system accurately models reality or resolves substantive metaphysical puzzles about composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim relies on unpacking 'relative identity' and 'divine nature' in ways that may equivocate, making the appearance of consistency an artifact of notation.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Trinity1 linked

    Related

    Formal consistency differs from metaphysical possibility; Van Inwagen's logic sh...Formal consistency in a logic system doesn't establish that the system accuratel...If non-theological analogues are demonstrably impossible, the relative identity ...Relative identity allows 'x is identical to y relative to sortal F' without abso...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim relies on unpacking 'relative identity' and 'divine nature' in ways th...Van Inwagen has not shown the logical possibility of any Trinity theory.Vohánka's non-theological analogues fail because they lack the metaphysical uniq...

    Details

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