Such as, “the question of whether there is one god or many (or none) as a version of the question of whether there is “one truth or many.”
Eh?
The Maverick Philosopher shines the bright sunlight of clarity on this whole mucky swamp of confusion:
The claim that truth is absolute, and cannot be relative to individuals or groups or historical epochs or races, or anything else, is a claim about the nature of truth. It is a claim about what truth is. One who insists on this obvious point is not laying claim to any absolute or god-like knowledge. I can know that truth is absolute without knowing which propositions are true. It is not polite to say it, but say it we must: the failure to grasp such a simple point is a mark of stupidity in someone like Caputo who has had plenty of time and opportunity to learn something about philosophy. He’s committing a rookie blunder, a sophomoric mistake. (emphases added)
Related posts:

podcast 59 - Dr. Carl Mosser on salvation as deification

God, Allah, George Washington, and Eric Clapton

feedback on an argument that the New Testament is unitarian

The Latin Trinity Chart 1 - 8 things, 1 trinity

Richard of St. Victor’s De Trinitate, Ch. 20 (Dale)

Pruss on a triple statue analogy for the Trinity

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 6 Part 2 – Bowman

podcast 33 - Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate - Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 1

podcast 242 – Dr. Beau Branson on the Monarchy of the Father – Part 4

