>>17929966
None of those, it is even more fundamental since it attacks classical identity which is used by the others and entailment like Leibniz's law. I am not sure why you think it is such a good explanation since even the likes of van Inwagen admits there are issues
>But St. Iranaeus alone did materially err on dogma
Why? That seems contradictory.
>Not another being
True, just person. Meaning there are divine making properties that are only exclusive to the Father person in the godhead. If only the Father possessed the omni attributes you too would not consider the other persons to be God. I am doing the same just with other attributes.
>Does not need relations
Why not? Omnipotence doesn't need to be actualized every moment but love does?
>You are not understanding what I’m saying.
I am and I am denying that relations like these are necessary in the first place. God has the attribute of creator prior to creation and similarly the same reasoning applies to love. But even if I am wrong (you can't demonstrate that) the relations that are supposedly required exist entirely within God because of his knowledge. Even the bible admits this https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13-18&version=NIV Also yes I am but please no faulty analogies like the other guy.