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

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"