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 impure relative identity trinitarianism is ... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Van Inwagen's impure relative identity trinitarianism is inadequate.

    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.Relative identity theories require that 'x is the same F as y' be primitive, but Van Inwagen never specifies what F-kind unifies the Trinity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a specified sortal, 'same God as' is semantically vacuous and cannot do the ontological work of grounding trinitarian unity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Geach's original relative identity framework requires sortals drawn from natural kinds, not ad hoc theological predicates invented to avoid contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Impure relative identity permits numerical distinctness between persons while asserting co-divinity, which on Leibniz's Law entails the persons differ in some property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the persons differ in any property, then at least one person lacks a divine attribute the others possess, violating classical theism's divine simplicity doctrine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A trinitarian metaphysics that is formally consistent but incompatible with divine simplicity fails the adequacy conditions set by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creedal tradition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't deny that there are non-identical divine beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The impure relative identity trinitarian owes us a plausible and orthodox metaphysical story about how non-identical beings may nonetheless be 'one God'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Inwagen hasn't provided such a story, staying as he has in the realm of logic.
      ?

      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

    A trinitarian metaphysics that is formally consistent but incompatible with divi...Geach's original relative identity framework requires sortals drawn from natural...If the persons differ in any property, then at least one person lacks a divine a...Impure relative identity permits numerical distinctness between persons while as...
    +5 moreShow less
    Relative identity theories require that 'x is the same F as y' be primitive, but...The impure relative identity trinitarian owes us a plausible and orthodox metaph...The theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't deny that there are non-id...Van Inwagen hasn't provided such a story, staying as he has in the realm of logi...Without a specified sortal, 'same God as' is semantically vacuous and cannot do ...

    Similar

    Popular Latin trinitarianism is incoherent84%Van Inwagen's theory has not demonstrated the consistency of trinitari...82%The impure relative identity trinitarian owes us a plausible and ortho...82%Popular Latin trinitarianism holds claims 1–3 about numerical identity...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: trinity
    Michael Rea (2003)
    View source passageHide passage
    Michael Rea (2003) objects that by remaining neutral on the issue of identity, van Inwagen’s theory allows that the three Persons are (absolutely) non-identical, in which case “it is hard to see what it could possibly mean to say that they are the same being” (Rea 2003, 441). It seems that any things which are non-identical are not the same being. Thus, van Inwagen must assume that there is absolute identity, and deny that this relation holds between the Persons. Thus, van Inwagen has not demonstrated the consistency of (this version of) trinitarianism. Further, the theory doesn’t rule out pol...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises collectively support the conclusion that van Inwagen's theory is inadequate by showing it fails to rule out polytheism and lacks the required metaphysical account, and these points are explicitly stated in the source passage as part of Rea's objection.

    Confidence: Explicitly stated objection in the passage.

    Details

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