>>17931375
"The view of identity just put forward (henceforth “the classical view”) characterizes it as the equivalence relation which everything has to itself and to nothing else and which satisfies Leibniz’s Law." - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/ It's literally the thing which RI rejects, and it is accepted by most philosophers so I am not sure why we have to simply throw it out for the sake of the trinity.
>No because what is infallible in Catholicism is from Ecumenical councils and from Ex-Cathedra statements
Fair enough that seems reasonable, but don't you think it is odd that Church Fathers pre Nicaea somehow always got things wrong about the trinity?
>The divine property is this case is to be an independent being.
Yes, but those persons you call fully God. How can this be if all but the Father qualify for this divine property?
>This is unrelated to the existence of others
Well not really since what is logically possible is creation too, there would be a dependence here. God's love too can be understood to be just an ability that is not actualized at every moment. And even if it had to, the love is still directed to you prior to creation https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%201:4&version=KJV
>because he would need knowledge
He already has it as a result of his omniscience. It's not like he had to find out you exist. Also thanks I didn't know of that translation
>metaphors
Atharis don't believe they are "parts" either, they don't affirm a modality or liken God to creation like that. What they do instead is affirm the meaning like for example when it mentions Adam being shaped by God's hands. They merely say God has the attribute of matter manipulation and everything else they don't speculate.