This was a deep dive into something I knew nothing about. I'm amazed how complicated we tend to make that which God put forth very plainly. Great discussion.
It would be interesing a debate / conversation between William Lane Craig and Edward Feser about the Divine simplicity and the ralationship between God and the Time
As a Catholic, I appreciate your efforts as it forces Catholics to be better at articulating. Of course there is always the fun game of trying to topple the foundation of the dogma of infallibility of the Catholic Church by showing one of it's dogmas to be essentially problematic.
Wisdom recognizes that only GOD knows. And GOD teaches he who is wise, but cannot teach he who is otherwise. "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth can be read in less than five minutes online. And yet, you will have read 8 Chapters that give you an understanding like never before. This tiny book has come through GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of the prophet Elijah. I don't receive TH-cam comment notifications, but seekers will easily find my contact info.
The opening definition by Ryan Mullins makes God sound like the universe or the theory of dark-matter. Or the atheist version of God, he doesn't exist or has never been experienced. A sort of Gnostic belief.
40:00 Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but wouldn't the classical theist point towards the fact that God is subsistent being itself as the reason that he exists? It is in virtue of him being actus purus that he exists, because he simply is existence itself. So when Dr. Mullins says "there's nothing in God that can do the explaining" (4:16), he is missing the point that the classical theist is making, that God exists because he is existence itself?
47:13 Craig days the trinity is like a social club and the father, son, & Holy Spirit are the members of the social club. This is not monotheism people. This is polytheism through and through.
All analogies break down at some point. The purpose of any particular analogy is to draw out a specific similarity. Here, the point of the social club analogy is that clubs are single things consisting of multiple persons. God is a single thing consisting of multiple persons. The analogy breaks down at the level of substance, but that's not the focus of the analogy, so it would be irrelevant to object to that difference. Dr. Craig has elsewhere addressed and affirmed the single ousia (substance) of the tripersonal God. Here, for example: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity. - RF Admin
does anyone have a clue about why God named Himself YHWH? it's something that crossed my mind after watching the discussion. also, what is the best translation of it?
There are various theories about that, and several might in fact be true at the same time. But the most common translation by scholars is: "I am that I am" or "I am who I am" The first time God says I AM (“I AM WHO I AM”), the Hebrew says, “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh”, which translates as “I will be what I will be." or "I am what I will become". God is the eternal timeless being. Another way of reading the hebrew is that YHWH means: "he who causes everything to be". There are also other senses depending on how you put in the wovels between the consonants.
I don’t think God actually has a name. I think God uses such concepts to communicate with us and help us understand God. Hebrew is just one language among many human languages and it is not the first language and it is not even the first language to encounter God. So God doesn’t have a Hebrew name just like God doesn’t have a physical being (apart from the person of Jesus), skin color or physical eyes.
'I am that I am' is the closest phrase in English that makes grammatical sense in our usual parlance, but doesn't really do it justice. I would say the Hebrew suggests something more like 'I am Amness' or to be more technical 'I am the essence of Existing'. So God tells Moses to simply say 'I Am' sent you which carries the sense that God is not properly defined by reference to anything extrinsic to Himself but rather everything else is defined in reference to Him. So our descriptions of God are kind of anachronistic in a metaphysical sense(like describing a chariot as a car that's pulled by horses to someone born in the 21st century and has never seen the former); we're always arguing backwards to what God is when we use analogy or descriptions of God's nature.
Lets say every person in the trinity are interacting with one another...... does the Father, when he is interacting with the Son.....have an experience of interacting with God And same for the Son.... when he is interacting with the Father or the Spirit .... is he .....perspectively dealing with God?
i affirm the trinity but have no sensible way of explaining it, although I think the cerberus analogy is the closest i've heard that doesn't seem to commit modalism or partialism. does WLC have any great videos that explain this in a way i could explain to a lay person? it is a very hard doctrine for even the people who affirm it to grasp.
Here are a couple of good resources: www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/is-there-a-good-analogy-for-the-trinity th-cam.com/play/PLIpO3BUiq2IHqopJhNQrGAFJn1VrcP0VW.html - RF Admin
Divine simplicity is my only point of disagreement with Dr. Craig. Classical theism is far and away a much truer, biblical, and logical understanding of God than theist mutualism or theistic personalism.
For the record, proponents of DDS do not deny that God is Lord or Creator. We just deny that this entails God must take on a new intrinsic property in order to become the creator and Lord.
@@terminat1 , yes, the key is that Aquinas believes (and I affirm) that God can be the Lord and Creator without introducing accidental modifications/properties into the Godhead. He becomes creator and Lord by bringing about effects such as creation and men who are subject to him. So, while the Scripture is clear God is Lord and Creator, it is not clear on the particular metaphysics of how/why God is Lord and Creator. We go into this a bit more on a recent episode of the Classical Theism Podcast if you're interested.
You will never understand the Bible without GOD explaining it to you, DIRECTLY. "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth can be read in less than five minutes online. And yet, you will have read 8 Chapters that give you an understanding like never before. This tiny book has come through GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of the prophet Elijah. I don't receive TH-cam comment notifications, but seekers will easily find my contact info.
I found it intuitive to think of the trinity as not 'parts' of God but rather reflections of God's nature thinly vailed to us upon the tapestry of time. Time acting as a separating agent from our corporeal perspective where as outside of time this separating agent is merely empty space devoid of God's presence and therefore entirely irrelevant. Thus it is not necessarily accurate to say God is outside time rather God is whole and unitarily simplistic and inherent, unpenetrated by the irrelevant emptiness that is not of God. Yet it is the moment that emptiness penetrates and separates the essence of God that this empty space becomes 'time' and God's essence stretched across the tapestry of time brings about the granularity of the universe we perceive as God's complexity.
At the age of 48, Thomas Aquinas had a mystical experience. He said, "All that I have written now seems like straw compared to what has been revealed to me." All that you can know (intellectually) about GOD, yourself, this world, and heaven can be read in five minutes: "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth. Truth is NOT anti-biblical. It's anti-limitation. And man's understanding is always limited. YOU were made in GOD's image; not vica-versa. And ultimately Truth (GOD) can only be experienced. Any intellectual understanding can never be anything more than symbolic. GOD's prophet has spoken.
This was a deep dive into something I knew nothing about. I'm amazed how complicated we tend to make that which God put forth very plainly. Great discussion.
Excellent discussion, learnt so much and keen to learn more.
Mind blown. Huuuuge fan of this Dr Mullins !!
Good stuff ty.
Lmao when Cameron showed Craig the "Kalam" hat, Craig said he would wear it hahahaha
It would be interesing a debate / conversation between William Lane Craig and Edward Feser about the Divine simplicity and the ralationship between God and the Time
I have wanted to see this for a long time as well
They already had a dialogue on divine simplicity
Would be great to see Bill debate David Bentley Hart
A lot of this really kind of reminds me of what Alan Watts gets into in his lectures on Eastern religion.
As a Catholic, I appreciate your efforts as it forces Catholics to be better at articulating. Of course there is always the fun game of trying to topple the foundation of the dogma of infallibility of the Catholic Church by showing one of it's dogmas to be essentially problematic.
Wisdom recognizes that only GOD knows. And GOD teaches he who is wise, but cannot teach he who is otherwise. "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth can be read in less than five minutes online. And yet, you will have read 8 Chapters that give you an understanding like never before. This tiny book has come through GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of the prophet Elijah. I don't receive TH-cam comment notifications, but seekers will easily find my contact info.
Yes! i don't like they protestants who have a hate and dogmatic position agains catholics, that dosen't help cristianity. God Bless You Brother!
@End Times 2020 yes, and?
As a Catholic your f@#%ed.
It seems this entire problem would be averted with the essence energy distinction.
The opening definition by Ryan Mullins makes God sound like the universe or the theory of dark-matter. Or the atheist version of God, he doesn't exist or has never been experienced. A sort of Gnostic belief.
40:00 Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but wouldn't the classical theist point towards the fact that God is subsistent being itself as the reason that he exists? It is in virtue of him being actus purus that he exists, because he simply is existence itself. So when Dr. Mullins says "there's nothing in God that can do the explaining" (4:16), he is missing the point that the classical theist is making, that God exists because he is existence itself?
When anyone says “God can’t….” and attempts to explain an eternal mystery.
Potential, Time, Constraint, Being,
47:13 Craig days the trinity is like a social club and the father, son, & Holy Spirit are the members of the social club. This is not monotheism people. This is polytheism through and through.
All analogies break down at some point. The purpose of any particular analogy is to draw out a specific similarity. Here, the point of the social club analogy is that clubs are single things consisting of multiple persons. God is a single thing consisting of multiple persons. The analogy breaks down at the level of substance, but that's not the focus of the analogy, so it would be irrelevant to object to that difference. Dr. Craig has elsewhere addressed and affirmed the single ousia (substance) of the tripersonal God. Here, for example: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg if no analogy can explain the Trinity concept satisfactory, then the Trinity is simply unintelligible
does anyone have a clue about why God named Himself YHWH? it's something that crossed my mind after watching the discussion. also, what is the best translation of it?
There are various theories about that, and several might in fact be true at the same time. But the most common translation by scholars is: "I am that I am" or "I am who I am" The first time God says I AM (“I AM WHO I AM”), the Hebrew says, “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh”, which translates as “I will be what I will be." or "I am what I will become". God is the eternal timeless being. Another way of reading the hebrew is that YHWH means: "he who causes everything to be". There are also other senses depending on how you put in the wovels between the consonants.
I don’t think God actually has a name. I think God uses such concepts to communicate with us and help us understand God.
Hebrew is just one language among many human languages and it is not the first language and it is not even the first language to encounter God.
So God doesn’t have a Hebrew name just like God doesn’t have a physical being (apart from the person of Jesus), skin color or physical eyes.
'I am that I am' is the closest phrase in English that makes grammatical sense in our usual parlance, but doesn't really do it justice. I would say the Hebrew suggests something more like 'I am Amness' or to be more technical 'I am the essence of Existing'. So God tells Moses to simply say 'I Am' sent you which carries the sense that God is not properly defined by reference to anything extrinsic to Himself but rather everything else is defined in reference to Him. So our descriptions of God are kind of anachronistic in a metaphysical sense(like describing a chariot as a car that's pulled by horses to someone born in the 21st century and has never seen the former); we're always arguing backwards to what God is when we use analogy or descriptions of God's nature.
Lets say every person in the trinity are interacting with one another......
does the Father, when he is interacting with the Son.....have an experience of interacting with God
And same for the Son.... when he is interacting with the Father or the Spirit .... is he .....perspectively dealing with God?
i affirm the trinity but have no sensible way of explaining it, although I think the cerberus analogy is the closest i've heard that doesn't seem to commit modalism or partialism. does WLC have any great videos that explain this in a way i could explain to a lay person? it is a very hard doctrine for even the people who affirm it to grasp.
Here are a couple of good resources:
www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/is-there-a-good-analogy-for-the-trinity
th-cam.com/play/PLIpO3BUiq2IHqopJhNQrGAFJn1VrcP0VW.html
- RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg ayee i saw you on discussion with Paul Williams. Can you next talk to Jake Brancatella the muslim metaphysician about trinity?
I started looking up books for Dr. Mullins and it appears I can't get them... I wonder why. I would like to read some of his work.
Welcome to modern day book burning and ebook burning and censorship and welcome to the new world oder order.
They’re on Amazon
This is a really funny episode of Peep Show. ;P
It has been said that Aquinas baptized Aristotle and made him a good Catholic.
With respect, I don’t think any of these guys understand DDS.
Much respect to Dr Craig
Care to elaborate? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg yes, but not here. Maybe on me channel? It’s small.
There's too much agreement here. lol
How is that funny?
Divine simplicity is my only point of disagreement with Dr. Craig. Classical theism is far and away a much truer, biblical, and logical understanding of God than theist mutualism or theistic personalism.
As a matter of respect, I would suggest renaming your video to include the names of _both_ guests.
When one's philosophy trumps the Bible, you need to throw out the philosophy. The Bible plainly teaches that God is Lord and Creator, etc.
For the record, proponents of DDS do not deny that God is Lord or Creator. We just deny that this entails God must take on a new intrinsic property in order to become the creator and Lord.
@@JohnDeRosa1990 Oh, well thanks for sharing. I didn't know.
@@terminat1 , yes, the key is that Aquinas believes (and I affirm) that God can be the Lord and Creator without introducing accidental modifications/properties into the Godhead. He becomes creator and Lord by bringing about effects such as creation and men who are subject to him. So, while the Scripture is clear God is Lord and Creator, it is not clear on the particular metaphysics of how/why God is Lord and Creator. We go into this a bit more on a recent episode of the Classical Theism Podcast if you're interested.
You will never understand the Bible without GOD explaining it to you, DIRECTLY. "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth can be read in less than five minutes online. And yet, you will have read 8 Chapters that give you an understanding like never before. This tiny book has come through GOD's prophet, the prophesied return of the prophet Elijah. I don't receive TH-cam comment notifications, but seekers will easily find my contact info.
I found it intuitive to think of the trinity as not 'parts' of God but rather reflections of God's nature thinly vailed to us upon the tapestry of time. Time acting as a separating agent from our corporeal perspective where as outside of time this separating agent is merely empty space devoid of God's presence and therefore entirely irrelevant. Thus it is not necessarily accurate to say God is outside time rather God is whole and unitarily simplistic and inherent, unpenetrated by the irrelevant emptiness that is not of God. Yet it is the moment that emptiness penetrates and separates the essence of God that this empty space becomes 'time' and God's essence stretched across the tapestry of time brings about the granularity of the universe we perceive as God's complexity.
At the age of 48, Thomas Aquinas had a mystical experience. He said, "All that I have written now seems like straw compared to what has been revealed to me." All that you can know (intellectually) about GOD, yourself, this world, and heaven can be read in five minutes: "The Book of GOD" at A Course in Truth. Truth is NOT anti-biblical. It's anti-limitation. And man's understanding is always limited. YOU were made in GOD's image; not vica-versa. And ultimately Truth (GOD) can only be experienced. Any intellectual understanding can never be anything more than symbolic. GOD's prophet has spoken.
This is not a debate... bunch of people agreeing with each other. Wasted 1hr....bring in serious people and debate
To be fair, the title did say "discussion".