tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post3057314706164514727..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: The Ontological Argument and the TrinityRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-38371099871066180552013-12-21T12:48:28.059-05:002013-12-21T12:48:28.059-05:00As long as by "mind" we mean "cogni...As long as by "mind" we mean "cognitive faculties" I'd say you have it right! :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-13962650416409668352013-12-20T22:09:57.592-05:002013-12-20T22:09:57.592-05:00OK, forgive me for being so dense :) (I appreciate...OK, forgive me for being so dense :) (I appreciate your patience) but to sum up, then, am I right in understanding the spirit/soul of humans (and also angels I guess) as being some sort of immaterial substance endowed with a mind, and that in the case of the trinity we have one immaterial substance endowed with three minds?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-90263509811473903822013-12-20T13:55:46.975-05:002013-12-20T13:55:46.975-05:00I may have butchered it here, because Craig would ...I may have butchered it here, because Craig would probably correct me: he does think God is personal, but not only one person, and so maybe I should have said "mind/soul/being."Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-73058938210165892862013-12-20T13:54:40.313-05:002013-12-20T13:54:40.313-05:00He might say that; unfortunately I just don't ...He might say that; unfortunately I just don't know for sure what he would say. What I want to do is avoid ascribing univocality for terms like "mind" and "soul" to Craig, since most of us do not use only one meaning for many, if not most, of our terms. Stated positively, many, if not most, of the terms we use have more than one meaning. Because of that, I'd hate to saddle Craig with only one. That explains my restriction to this analogy. I do think he takes mind/soul/person to be synonymous when speaking of God, and thus "cognitive faculties" would be a kind of subset, not purely identical to God himself, but some kind of predicate.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-65210856832054694072013-12-20T09:33:35.156-05:002013-12-20T09:33:35.156-05:00I might be more confused now :), but I'll give...I might be more confused now :), but I'll give it a shot: So Craig is equating mind and soul just for the purpose of the analogy but in real life (so to speak) he wouldn't be arguing that the soul and mind are totally synonymous, though the mind is part of the soul?. I'm still a little confused as to what the soul actually is then: is it just some immaterial substance or energy which is endowed with a rational mind?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-30348654799246558362013-12-19T22:44:29.151-05:002013-12-19T22:44:29.151-05:00In this comparison, he is using "mind" f...In this comparison, he is using "mind" for "soul," and that's why he is deliberately using "cognitive faculties" for intellect. So, if I am interpreting Craig correctly, the way in which he uses these terms within the analogy is that cognitive faculties are subsets of minds, whereas mind is standing for the soul, which is a being. So mind/soul-->cognitive faculties. Does that help?Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-13207797772730957382013-12-17T14:09:03.780-05:002013-12-17T14:09:03.780-05:00OK. In WLCs analogy he says,
"The idea is th...OK. In WLCs analogy he says,<br /><br />"The idea is that we should start by thinking of God as a soul, just as you are a soul; and when you die, you are a disembodied soul. You are at that time an unembodied consciousness, so you are one thing – you are one immaterial substance. That is what I am inviting us to think about God as. God is an immaterial substance, a mind, just like you are when you are an unembodied soul. Then I want to invite you to think that this is a soul that is much more richly endowed with cognitive faculties than you are. You just have one set of cognitive faculties, and therefore you are one person. But I want you to try to imagine a soul that is endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties."<br /><br /><br />The bit that confused me was that I always assumed (maybe wrongly) that the soul/spirit was some sort of ghostly immaterial replica of us, like in the film 'Ghost' where Patrick Swayze dies and his soul/spirit leaves his body (or, to use a more biblical example, the witch of Endor story where a soul'spirit appears).. And I assumed Craig therefore saw God as one soul/spirit which just happened to have three minds whereas humans in contrast have one. However what threw me was that Craig then seems to equate the soul and mind and use the words as synonyms. But, if that's the case, it'd then seem he is saying that God is one mind (soul) that has 3 minds, which doesn't seem to make sense. I'm probably misreading him somewhere. Hope this question makes sense too :)Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-28564882823199002962013-12-15T23:17:26.122-05:002013-12-15T23:17:26.122-05:00I've heard him mention it! I don't think i...I've heard him mention it! I don't think it's perfect, but I think it helps to illustrate what he needs it to.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-30041511533368526372013-12-11T20:54:57.360-05:002013-12-11T20:54:57.360-05:00Hi Randy, Slightly off-topic, but i just had a que...Hi Randy, Slightly off-topic, but i just had a question about William Lane Craig's comparison of the trinity to the mythical dog Cerberus. I'm not sure if you're familiar with his analogy.(www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s5-8) so before I ask my question I thought I'd just check to see if you had heard it.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-72181131795632205512013-08-24T13:45:05.757-04:002013-08-24T13:45:05.757-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-52068864441788645382013-05-31T14:22:48.892-04:002013-05-31T14:22:48.892-04:00Hello, thanks for commenting! I would say John Fei...Hello, thanks for commenting! I would say John Feinberg's book "No One Like Him" might have something to say about it, though I am not sure.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-28551496686509692802013-05-27T18:14:28.636-04:002013-05-27T18:14:28.636-04:00Hello,
I'm also interested in this question (a...Hello,<br />I'm also interested in this question (and am trying to write a seminary paper about it). There is very little written on this that I've come across so far so any leads would be welcome.<br /><br />I think that each member of the Trinity must exist necessarily. To suggest otherwise seems to amount to what I'll call modal Arianism-the view that "There is a possible world in which He is not." <br /><br />The Father seems to exists necessarily, by virtue of an ontological argument of some sort (or in order to refute the question "who made God?"). The Nicene principle of homoousion, however, requires that the Father and Son share the same nature. Against the Arians, this ruled out the Father being eternal but the Son having a beginning. Against modal Arians, this rules out the Father existing necessarily but the Son existing contingently.<br /><br />Richard of St. Victor argued that (at least) three persons are necessary due the nature of love. The only question in my mind is "Why not more?" If you have any feedback or books to point me too I'd appreciate it. <br /><br />Take care,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com