My friend @riir52520747 made a Argument against The Trinity, Here goes:

P1) God is triune. (Assumption for Reductio)
P2) The Son, The Father, and Holy Spirit are not identical to each other. (From, "Trinity")
P3) The Son, The Father, The Holy Spirit are each God (From, Trinity)

P4) Only The Son has the essential property of being identical to the "Son." (From the definition of "Essential Property", and Haecceity.)
P5) Only The Father has the essential property of being Identical to the Father.
P6) Only the Holy Spirit has the essential property of being identical to the Holy Spirit.
C1) Therefore, each member of the trinity are identical in quiddity, but still differs haeccetistically. (From 3, 4, 5, 6.)
C2) Therefore, each member of the trinity is essentially non-identical. (From, "Haecceity")
C3) Therefore, there are 3 distinct entities which each have the property of "Being God"
C4) Therefore, There are 3 Gods.
C5) The Trinity affirms there is only one God.
C6) Therefore, the Trinity is contradictory.
C7) Therefore, God cannot be triune.

Justification for 4, 5 and 6:
An essential property, is simply going to: be A property P is essential to an individual x iff it is not possible that x exist and fail to bear property P. We do not mean essential property in the medieval sense, and even if we did we can still derive this notion of essential…
…identity/haecceity very easily.

Now clearly, each member of the trinity is going to be essentially identical to *themselves*. And such a property, is strictly going to be identical to what we would call a "Haecceity."
Now that each member differs haeccetistically, they're going to be essentially non-identical. As X and Y are going to be distinct iff there is some property they don't share given the identity of indiscernibles + the indiscernibility of Identicals.
Now that we've established that each person of the trinity differs in such a manner, they're going to be distinct in such a way that we no longer have some "3 in 1" notion we can work off, as we just introduced a principle of individuation, namely their haecceities, which…
…treats them as wholly seperate.

Then, if all these persons differ in this manner, and each are identical to God, then we have that there are 3 Gods. Blatant Polytheism. And clearly, a Contradiction.
This argument is specifically strong, because trinitarians can no longer appeal to Relative Identity, or adopt say, a thomistic account of the Trinity.
They're going to need to introduce a completely different definition of essential property, and explain why some individual X's haecceity cannot be easily derived from such a definition.
Note that this definition was pioneered by Alvin Plantinga, and is generally accepted among philosophers. So it's going to be very hard to see how someone would attempt doing that.

END

More from Life

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.

You May Also Like

॥ॐ॥
अस्य श्री गायत्री ध्यान श्लोक:
(gAyatri dhyAna shlOka)
• This shloka to meditate personified form of वेदमाता गायत्री was given by Bhagwaan Brahma to Sage yAgnavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य).

• 14th shloka of गायत्री कवचम् which is taken from वशिष्ठ संहिता, goes as follows..


• मुक्ता-विद्रुम-हेम-नील धवलच्छायैर्मुखस्त्रीक्षणै:।
muktA vidruma hEma nIla dhavalachhAyaiH mukhaistrlkShaNaiH.

• युक्तामिन्दुकला-निबद्धमुकुटां तत्वार्थवर्णात्मिकाम्॥
yuktAmindukalA nibaddha makutAm tatvArtha varNAtmikam.

• गायत्रीं वरदाभयाङ्कुश कशां शुभ्रं कपालं गदाम्।
gAyatrIm vardAbhayANkusha kashAm shubhram kapAlam gadAm.

• शंखं चक्रमथारविन्दयुगलं हस्तैर्वहन्ती भजै॥
shankham chakramathArvinda yugalam hastairvahantIm bhajE.

This shloka describes the form of वेदमाता गायत्री.

• It says, "She has five faces which shine with the colours of a Pearl 'मुक्ता', Coral 'विद्रुम', Gold 'हेम्', Sapphire 'नील्', & a Diamond 'धवलम्'.

• These five faces are symbolic of the five primordial elements called पञ्चमहाभूत:' which makes up the entire existence.

• These are the elements of SPACE, FIRE, WIND, EARTH & WATER.

• All these five faces shine with three eyes 'त्रिक्षणै:'.