I was about to say the same thing! The Grfx really help to accentuate his explanations

@brentonstanfield5198 so you believe that God is eternally suffering on the Cross? Do you also believe that you are a necessary being and that God had to create you and was not free to create you? Was there ever a time where you weren’t a thought in God’s mind? Or are you as eternal as God is, essentially being part of God yourself?

@@apilkey - You ask: “so you believe that God is eternally suffering on the Cross?” No. The man Jesus suffered and died on a cross. God doesn’t “suffer” or die. You are conflating the human nature and divine nature. This would be the heresy of either theopassianism or patripassianism. Theopassianism, taught that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism taught that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time. You ask: “Do you also believe that you are a necessary being and that God had to create you and was not free to create you?” No. You are clearly confused. Created and “necessary being” are mutually exclusive categories. There is only one eternal, uncreated, and necessary being that is “a se”. The fact that I am created means by definition that my being is contingent on God’s necessary being. I DEPEND on His being for my being, ie I am contingent on His necessary being. You are mistaking the FACT that it was “necessary” for God to create what He created to accomplish what He desires to accomplish with the idea of “necessary being”. But these are easy to distinguish. We can conceive of possible worlds. Each possible worlds COULD BE different. But, for all of them, there would need to some ultimately explanatory being upon which these worlds depend. It is this ultimately explanatory being that we call God. He is necessary in all conceivable worlds. We, the creatures, are what could conceivably not be or be different. God is FREEDOM. He is free because He is GOOD and what He desires defines what is goodness itself and always does what is good. But you are confused because you don’t have a Biblical definition of freedom. You conflate it with mere “independence”. But the Biblical definition is more robust. True freedom simply is goodness. You ask: “Was there ever a time where you weren’t a thought in God’s mind?” God is eternal. He is not in time. If you are thinking of God as being “in time” then you are failing to understand the distinction between time and eternity.

@@apilkey You're exposing your ignorance on the doctrine 1. Nop I'm not necessary. Creation is contingent upon God actualizing it. God's act of creating itself is numerically identical to himself, but the terminus or end term of his act is different from him. God can have cambridge properties. Nop, God's logoi are eternal are identical to him, but virtually distinct. Nop, not part of God. I'm composed of an essentia/essence and an esse/act of being, while God transcends everything and is free of any composition. If you deny divine simplicity you're worshipping a composite being

@@claudiumarcello5789Was there ever a money in time when God was free to not create you? Yes or no?

@@apilkey - God is not IN TIME. Time is IN GOD. As Paul says in Acts 17:28: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being…”. You want a god who is “in reality” along side you… someone who you can judge, who is subject to your standards for right and wrong, good or bad. But God is the source of reality, and you are in His reality, and subject to His standards.

Thanks! I added it; can you see it now?

@@TruthUnites Thank you! Yes, we can see it now.

No 3 is spot on, either you keep the Trinity or you keep classical logic. And if you choose the Trinity you must replace classical logic...with what I don't know. I think the bigger question after this is why would a god with perfect foreknowledge (who knew this would be a stumbling block, and who also wants all men to be saved) would do such a poor job explaining the Trinity in inspired Scripture? The state of these doctrines makes perfect sense if they are man made and added later in response to criticisms as the religion organically developed and no sense at all if divine inspiration is actually true. The lack of textual support for the Trinity is compelling evidence Christianity is a man made religion.

Well said and concisely put

Here's one argument against those who deny DS, the most holy doctrine preserving God's simplicity. 1. Either God's essence is omnipotent (or whatever) through itself or through it's attribute 2. If it's through itself then you affirm divine simplicity 3. If it's through the attribute, then God's essence receives it's perfection from something else in virtue of participation; just like how iron receives heat qua it's union with fire, but is devoid of it naturally C. Hence God is composed of act and potency (passive potency) since his essence receives it's perfection from something else Bad argument. The distinction between the persons is real. When the persons point towards the divine essence, they simly become nothing other than the divine essence itself; but when they're compared to their correlative term; then they become really distinct; because we have an actor and a recipient of that very act. Aquinas quoting Aristotle gave a good example of action, passion and motion. Both action and passion are identical to motion, but when directed towards each other they become really distinct.

God’s essence isn’t omnipotent, God is. God is His essence + attributes. As for God receiving His omnipotence from “something else”, that’s inaccurate. God’s attributes are part of Him, they simply aren’t identical to Him. The comparison with iron is disanalogous, as God possesses His essential attributes eternally and unchangingly. What you are describing is relative identity, which is inconsistent with classical logic. You say F (Father) and S (Son) are identical in D (Divine Essence) but not identical in P (personhood); that’s as clear a violation of classical identity as there can be.

Agreed. Though I am a non-Christian theist, so I guess I have less of a stake in it than a Christian would.

I was wondering about this as well, because it seems like when Craig talks about divine simplicity, he's responding to a much more radical view. I could be wrong about this. In this video, Gavin's presentation of simplicity seems super intuitive; no Christian would deny that "God is love," for example. But in QotW #729, Craig responds to a version of divine simplicity that he says would imply we could never know anything at all about God, if God does not have an "essence" and is instead the pure act of being. But that view also seems crazy to me. I'm not sure what I'm missing here. I'd love for Gavin and Craig to have a conversation about this!

Dr. Craig is against stronger interpretations of DS, which is found in Thomism. Dr. Craig affirms what could be called a modest DS, not affirming that God is the pure act of being like Thomism does; but would agree with Dr. O that God is not made up of parts either physical or metaphysical.

@@DerMelodist The denial of true simplicity where God's attributes are numerically identical to his essence, is composition and the worship of three gods.

@@DerMelodist Thanks mate, that makes perfect sense

mostly the idea that a distinct attribute can be deemed to be a 'part'.

The persons are distinct through their relations of origin. The Father is really distinct from the Son, because he generates the Son. The Father and Son are distinct from the Spirit because they actively spirate the Spirit. When you have a relation between an actor and a recipient, they'll be really distinguished. Just like how: Action = motion Passion = Motion But Action =/= passion

@@claudiumarcello5789 I don't think this quite addresses my question - I wasn't asking what makes the Persons distinct, I was asking how they can be distinct and yet God still be simple (since simplicity seems to be imply that there can be no distinction in God?).

They aren't compatible. This was the exact thought I had. Divine simplicity would promote the oneness doctrine which is unbiblical. Islam believes in divine simplicity too

​@@heather602 Enough faithful and intelligent Christians throughout history have believed in both Trinitarianism and divine simplicity that I think it is likely there must be some way of reconciling them. I just don't get what the reasoning is. I don't see how Islam is relevant here.

@@heather602Islam does not believe in DDS

What problems, and how do you solve them without divine simplicity?

@@HearGodsWord the problems the divine simplicity causes like modal collapse and its incompatibility with major Christian doctrines like christology

@aperson4057 it doesn't cause problems and it's not incompatible either.

@@HearGodsWord kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a6yVpc5-q57OcYU.html

@@aperson4057The Modal Collapse Argument is dead, as it is invalid. We do not argue that DDS is compatible after the Incarnation, either.

Check out Mike Winger’s most recent 20 questions video for solid help on choosing a church to attend. The first question he responds to is about whether there’s really thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations. Toward the end of his answer he spends time reflecting on wise criteria for deciding a church to attend in situations like yours.

The exact question I had.

Scripture casts it down. James says mercy is greater than judgment. God is described as our hope, faithfulness and love. But the greatest of these is love. So God's attributes are not all equal, as scripture teaches. The word became flesh, it wasn't always flesh. Yet, Jesus is both man and God still as He showed us after his resurrection that He still had flesh and invited Thomas to touch his wounds. Also God indwells believers, yet that doesn't make believers God.

Keanu Exists =D Keanu Reeves: An Example of Taoist Sage Humility, Virtue & Wisdom Question: How do you [Keanu] manage the ego? Answer: I'm a pretty simple guy [divine simplicity]... It's just in my nature [ziran]. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pa-jedZp38y8ZJ8.html "This particular actor [Keanu] is WISE beyond his years." - Derek Lin, Tao Te Ching scholar kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d7ufasmYltqzZXk.html

Eunomius like Barlaam say essence and attributes are synonymous, which no Thomist would accept. The distinction between them is minor virtual, where they're distinguished in virtue of having a different significaiton. Eunomius' error was also in identifying God's essentia (essence; whatness) with being unbegotten, and as the cappadocians rightly pointed out; is that unbegottenness is not a constitutive property, but ismply the negation of generation. Creation is eternal because it's a terminus of God's one act. The act is identical to his essence, but the end term or effect is NOT. God doesn't decide things discursively, he simply knows which to actualize and which not to actualize.

@@claudiumarcello5789 , ah, your words are wise and insightful. Perhaps you can point in the direction of the riddle which confronts us, whose twist is hidden. The question of a virtual distinction seems to lie at the heart of the matter, for some say, “ah, this is still parts” for though, to uses Faser’s example, the hydrogen and oxygen are only virtually in the water, and don’t really exist separately in it but as one water, yet, such a virtual distinction is separable. At least it is in water, where virtual distinctions can become real. I desire to approve of the idea that distinctions are only virtual in God, but is this enough, does it satisfy the demands of simplicity? And if begottenness is to be included in the divine (as it must be), is the distinction between Father and Son not real and beyond virtual? Would it be helpful to see God’s simplicity as virtual and the eternal begetting as the consequent reality, such that God’s trinity is real but eternally grounded in his unity? (Yet, of course, we would say this real relation was not a “caused” existence, because it is uniquely eternal). Perhaps, we should place the “unmoved mover to moved” relation of Aristotle inside our understanding of God (rather than use unchanging/change as the creator creature distinction)? Is this not what the creed does when it places begetting as an internal relation inside of God? Does that make sense? What if there is a sense in which God’s essence produces a faculty of will that in fact can choose, not discursively, but analogically to what we might think of as discursive. At least so as to be able to will or not will the creation, yet be perfectly good in either state. Your last paragraph is where I am confounded, for God is his own end, so to say the act of creation is part of God’s necessary essence but the effect is not part of God’s necessary essence (I.e., creation is contingent and not necessary), seems to separate God’s act from his end. But such a separation is just what the identity thesis of strong simplicity is supposed to deny. To make this distinction is to engage in a yes and no dialectic. This is why I am tempted to think that Neoplatonic pantheism remains among such as D.B. Hart and Frederich Schleiermacher. It is the consequence of an unresolved tension in our Christian metaphysic. I’m not sure, if I’ve expressed it clearly for you. Do those concerns make sense? In the end, I’m looking for a way to affirm that God is absolutely self-existent and independent Trinity, who is necessary in his existence, yet free in his acts such that creation is a contingent and a temporal reality, as scripture declares and which some philosophical reflections suggest. God is necessary, yet creation is not, and God is simple in his unity, yet three. That is the riddle with a twist that I see. And a simple trinitarian I would be.

haha, thanks!

Which Marian doctrine? RC has their own version, and the easterners have different nuances in their Mariology.

@@JoeThePresbapterian Both are united in their reverence for Mary in contrast to the diminished importance placed on Mary by Protestants, which would be not more important than apostles.

@@NP-vk8de What do you mean? I'm saying that if we are going to weigh historicity heavily, we might have to consider Marian dogma, which I find unbiblical, so this argument is fallaciousm

@SerendipitousProvidence There are wide ranges of diversity in Mariology even within RC and the four dogmas held by RC are not seen in the same manner by the easterners. I have mentioned earlier that the easterners have different nuances, and by the easterners, I meant Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East, as well as their variants. Protestants are not against Mary. Many affirm perpetual virginity or even entertain the possibility of the assumption without dogmatizing them. Again, those four do not fit the criteria of apostolic dogmas if we consider their later development.

Correct Tradition has never and will never trump God's word no matter how many philosophies concepts you pile in top of it

The arguments of Waig against it are pretty shoddy His disapproval need not concern you

Nhe, I don't trust Craig too much. His social Trinitarianism is a massive red flag. The monarchy of the Father is extremely clear in Scripture and tradition

There’s a Discord server linked in the video description!

Thanks for the invite! Though my concern wasn’t specifically about Catholicism, I still joined because i still got questions about it! Thanks for the reminder!

I think of two things : 1- It changes the way we see him as a supreme being that seems even bigger and good. People say: “I possess strength” God replies: “I am strength“ The Devil says: “I am victorious” God says: “I am victory” 2-If attributes are parts of God's nature, then by studying his creations, we can learn about him. Mathematics, science, biology, or whatever, it points to God. Orthodox don’t believe in that and they say that God's attributes are outside of him which makes his nature a mystery to us humans.

It's a confusing theory by nature

@@futuremech4692 I'm not sure I understand how it is confusing for you, what bothers you with this idea?

I read this as Christopher Walken lol

I made a long comment responding to his 3 points, maybe you would enjoy reading it? Here it is: I agree with your first definition of divine simplicity, namely, God is not made of parts. However, I don't agree with what you say immediately after that, where you claim that God is identical to his attributes. I think this is an incoherent position. It makes perfect sense to say "God is merciful", for example, but I don't see how it makes any sense to say "God is mercy". Mercy is an action. It is something you do. It is not something you can be. Additionally, you seem to end up in non-sensical statement. If God is identical to his attributes, so that God is identical to mercy, for example, then that is to say that God is mercy, and thus, mercy is God. So when I perform an act of mercy, I am performing an act of God... That just doesn't make any sense to me. How can I be doing God? Again this comes back to the fact that mercy is an action, it is something you do. But if you say God is mercy, then it would follow that you can "do God", whatever that is even supposed to mean. Additionally, if God is identical to his attributes, and God has many attributes, such as love, power, knowledge etc. Then it follows that all of God's attributes are the same thing. God's omnipotence would be identical to his righteousness, God's righteousness would be identical to his omniscience, God's omniscience would be identical to his love etc. But this is clearly false. Omnipotence and Omniscience are clearly two different things. They are not the same thing. In fact, God has attributes that are opposites of each other. For example, God is both merciful and wrathful. But if God's attributes are identical to his being, then to say God is merciful and wrathful would be to say that God is both mercy and wrath. But to say God is both mercy and wrath is to say that mercy and wrath are the same thing. But obviously, mercy and wrath are not the same thing, they are opposites! You say that if God instantiates his attributes then his attributes would be separate from him. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. My view is that God's attributes are essential to his being. God doesn't just happen to be loving, God is essentially loving. It is not possible for God to be not loving. It is a necessary part of his being. As such, it is not possible for God's attributes to be separate from him. To say that God has his attributes necessarily, and that they are an essential part of him, is incompatible with the view that his attributes are separate from him. And I can say this without running into the problems I mentioned above, that result from saying God is identical to his attributes. I also don't think it makes any sense to say that something like "mercy" could just exist, out there, as an abstract object. And even when you say that mercy exists as an abstract object, it wouldn't follow that any mercy would actually exist, because mercy is not merciful. So it seems to be inherently contradictory to claim that mercy could exist as an abstract object. You also say that, if we don't affirm divine simplicity, then we are committed to the view that God's attributes, like love and righteousness, just exist out there somehow and God just happens to exemplify them. This is clearly not true. I have explained my view above^^ and my view is neither divine simplicity in the way you characterise it, nor is it the view that God happens to exemplify attributes that exist outside of himself. This is where I would point to the moral argument, as the moral argument explains quite clearly that God doesn't just happen to be a good being, he doesn't just happen to exemplify things like love or righteousness that already exist, he is the very standard of goodness itself. He is the reason why love is good, for example. You say that divine simplicity is a historical position, however, I have heard people who have studied this (as I have not studied the history myself) say that the term "divine simplicity" has changed radically over the years. It used to simply mean "God is not composed of parts", which is precisely what your quote from Basil says. That is something that every Christian should agree with. However, that does not mean the church fathers believed everything else that has been added onto the term over the years, namely, that God is identical to his attributes, and that God is being itself as opposed to "a" being etc. Lastly, you say that we need divine simplicity to defend the trinity. I think the exact opposite is true. I think that divine simplicity is in conflict with the trinity. If God is supposed to be absolutely simple, in the way you are defining him to be, then how can there be 3 distinct persons in the being of God? How do you not end up concluding that the father is the son, and the son is the spirit, and the spirit is the father? How can there be this distinction between the persons of the trinity when God is supposed to be absolutely simple? And if God can exist as 3 distinct persons in this way, where each person is still an essential part of God's being, whilst still being considered simple, then why can God not have multiple attributes which are distinct from each other whilst still being part of God's being? This seems like a massive inconsistency on the part of divine simplicity. It sounds like you are saying "God is absolutely simple, except in this one particular way". If there is no distinction between the persons of the trinity, and no distinction between the persons of the trinity and God (the being), then you end up denying the trinity by claiming that all 3 persons of the trinity are the same person. If the father is not distinct from the son, if the son is not distinct from the spirit, if the spirit is not distinct from the father, then all 3 persons are the same person. Additionally, if you say that the Father is identical to God (the being), the son is identical to God (the being) and the spirit is identical to God (the being) then you are also claiming that the father is identical to the son, the son identical to the spirit, and the spirit identical to the father, resulting in all 3 persons being the same person again. The trinity, the collection of all 3 persons, is identical to God (the being). The only way to affirm the trinity is to maintain that there is a distinction between the persons of the trinity, that they are not identical to each other, and that each person of the trinity individually is not identical to God. Thus, God is not absolutely simple in the way that you are defining him to be. There can be distinctions within God without those distinct things being separable from God. Thus, God can have distinct attributes without those attributes being separable from God.

@@jackplumbridge2704 Yes, I did enjoy reading it very much! 😊 Thanks a lot for posting this reply - it raises very good concerns, it makes perfect sense, and it matches both intuition and Bible teaching, which is not what can be said about the unfortunate doctrine of divine simplicity! 😅 Thank you once again! ✨

Name a problem. Also, if you asked me my opinions on Mullins, this comment would be taken down and my account would be banned.

Name a problem.

@@mariemilycraigExodus 3:14 “I Am That I Am.

_"It makes perfect sense to say "God is merciful", for example, but I don't see how it makes any sense to say "God is mercy". Mercy is an action. It is something you do. It is not something you can be."_ Respectfully, a couple of quick points, friend. One, 'God is mercy' is absolutely a common expression throughout the church and history, I'm not sure why you've not come across this? Two, claiming that it doesn't logically or grammatically make sense for God to 'be' something you think is merely a verb is an issue with your particular human language and expression, not God. The Bible similarly says, 'God is love', yet for us, loving is an action, not something you or I ourselves can 'be'. To say something is 'not something you can be' is to speak of you and I as humans, not God. It's the cosmic equivilent of God telling you, 'Pfft, speak for yourself, human.'

Neither should you be convinced of the latter definition. Let not your conscience be troubled

@@Mic1904 "God is mercy' is absolutely a common expression throughout the church and history, I'm not sure why you've not come across this? " - I didn't say I hadn't come across it, I said it didn't make any sense. "Two, claiming that it doesn't logically or grammatically make sense for God to 'be' something you think is merely a verb is an issue with your particular human language and expression, not God." - No, it is a problem with the idea itself. Nothing can be an action, since being and action are two different things. "The Bible similarly says, 'God is love', yet for us, loving is an action, not something you or I ourselves can 'be'." - You are equivocating on the word "love". Love can be used to refer to an action, but it can also be used to refer to an attitude. When a person says "I love you" they are typically claiming that they have a loving attitude towards you, they are not commenting on any actions. "To say something is 'not something you can be' is to speak of you and I as humans, not God. It's the cosmic equivilent of God telling you, 'Pfft, speak for yourself, human.'" - It really just sounds like you are saying that God doesn't make sense and that we should just accept that he doesn't make sense.

Well put

The Son has the same Essence as the Father insofar you’re talking about The Divine Essence

@@JeetTheFire how does that work if the Father is NOT the Son and the Son is NOT the Father? You're essentially saying they are the same?

@@huntsman528 There are relative distinctions within each person, such as Paternity and Filliation

@@JeetTheFireDid the essence of the Father die on the cross? Did the essence of the Father descend into Sheol?

@@huntsman528 No, Jesus died according to His Human Nature which He assumed at the Incarnation and Jesus descended to hell according to the Human Nature too.

No lol

@@whoknows3PX One man in the IMAGE of ONE God. Why people have a hard time understanding ONE God?

@@springflowerblosomnorris9721 no one has a hard time understanding one God? Who says there are 3 gods? Lol

_"Divine Simplicity sounds quite complicated?"_ Divine Simplicity (that God is one and unified in his attributes and being, without parts) has absolutely nothing to do with the human concept of whether a person finds something 'simple' (i.e. easy to understand). _"Why do theologians make SIMPLE Biblical truth so complicated?"_ Can you highlight, from Scripture, which simple Biblical truth you think is being complicated? _"though this verse cites only one attribute it is sufficient to demonstrate that God is the sum of all His attributes."_ You've immediately, just in trying to 'simply' state something, stumbled into an absolutely massive issue by raising whether God is only a manifestation of attributes (i.e. God IS the sum of his attributes, i.e. multiple attributes added together which creates 'God'). You've managed, by attempting to oversimply something, to give the eternal God of the cosmos an origin within his own qualities. See the issue with pretending things are simple?

@@Mic1904 Some of what I wrote was a bit "tongue in cheek"! God is who He is .... as He Himself declares "I am who I am". He is light. He is truth. He is righteousness. He is goodness. He is love. God did not acquire these attributes as though He was at some point devoid of any attribute at all. God never existed as a "nothing". It is so simple I cannot understand what all the fuss and debate is about.

Yes. It sounds like you've thought quite a bit about this. Taoism, also.

@@thomasrutledge5941 what would you say is diffrent in taoism compared to monism? If i remember correctly everything is the tao/dao/"the way"?

​@@DeadEndFrogI don't think that there's a difference. Taoism is monistic [The Tao of the Absolute]. Monism, Pantheism and Taoism are essentially the same. Alan W. Watts really goes into Monism, Pantheism, Taoism etc. He's worth checking out, good stuff.

@@thomasrutledge5941 yeah im familiar with watts, i was just asking in case you had a diffrent view on the matter. I agree

​@@DeadEndFrogAlan Watts' understanding is remarkable. Genius is not a strong enough word to describe his depth of insight. It's downright spooky. lol That reminds me. I need to read "Tao, The Watercourse Way". I've had the book for years, but haven't read it yet. It was published shortly after his death.

Or maybe because divine simplicity is philosophically incoherent and church tradition makes no difference in if it’s coherent or not.

@@aperson4057 so you’re saying we should ignore the fact that it was taught by Irenaeus who was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John himself? Plus why do you think it’s philosophically incoherent? Analytic Thomists such as Alexander Pruss who WLC himself admitted is one of if not the smartest Christians alive today offers a brilliant defense of divine simplicity as philosophically coherent

@@bradleymarshall5489 it doesn’t matter who teaches it if it doesn’t hold water. There’s truth and there is intelligent defenders of classical theism. But all the matters are the arguments here. I don’t think classical can overcome the issues that are laid against it.

@@aperson4057 I mean have you actually read their work to know that? C.S. Lewis himself said it’s through reading the old books of Christians that one is made aware of modern biases that lead to synthetic religions. My entire point is much of the dismissal of divine simplicity seems to be less rooted in scripture and more rooted in the analytic style of philosophy that Plantiga and WLC employ which myself and other Jordan B Cooper would argue isn’t appropriate for theology

@@bradleymarshall5489 understood. Which is why critics of classical theism, like say Ryan Mullins, constantly quotes early Christian thinkers and the ideas they had. Analytic theologians are reading their works and finding them wanting.

You could probably make a similar argument about the reformers and Mary’s perpetual virginity.

@@bman5257 i do :))

@@danoctavian8184 Noice, Chad move.

Name one

@@JeetTheFire 1) The fact that if God and is properties are numerically identical it makes God a property 2) It entails God being timeless, meaning he can't know any time dependent propositions, therefore he fails to be omnipotent 3) He has to be immutable for divine simplicity to work, meaning he can't change in any way, which is not the God of the Bible we see. He can't answer prayers, make new covenants, etc 4) it entails that God is impassible, and not causally affected by anything and cannot have emotions, therefore Genesis 6:6-7 and the entire book of Hosea, as well as a lot in between have to be reinterpreted. 5) it poses possible problems for the crucifixion and nestorianism becomes possible if not navigated carefully 6) Platonism fails, but Divine conceptualism has a bootstrapping problem, so we have no way to deal with abstracts such as logical statements, numbers, universals etc 7) with aquinas's rendering of the doctrine, we are nit in the imago dei, as we don't share any properties with God. Even Scotus's conception of it faces problems 8) Alone world arguments against it show that God has to change 9) Modal collapse is possible, and even some classical theists have accepted that it poses many problems to them 10) It uses outdated aristotelean metaphysics, which have become obsolete since the 1700s. Is that enough, or do you need me to list more? I have a whole article where I just elaborate on problems with it.

​@@aydentrevaskis8390It all started with light, smart light! =) "Principle Of Minimal Action And Kinetic Energy" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d8yjjcx5qsnTqJ8.htmlsi=hz5mr-dqrUowTyZK "The Closest We Have to a Theory of Everything" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d5aUlJuFqsvFlXk.htmlsi=G5tHgHsAFjN-6sbx

@@aydentrevaskis8390 1) I don’t quite understand what you mean. 2) Who says He isn’t aware of time dependent properties? 3) He wills the answer to these things eternal but for these effects to happen at the time he eternally willed. 4) read the church fathers. 5) Research the Unionist Initiative who has had Astro debunking this. 6) Again, not sure what you mean. 7) the imago dei just means we have superiority over animals like God over Creation. 8) present one 9) Christopher Tomaszweski has debunked those modal collapse arguments 10) how are they obsolete?

@@SurinderSBansalthe original comment got taken down, mind sharing it again?

The Trinity isn't a problem

@@HearGodsWord that is an uneducated opinion

@@danhoff4401 that is such an ad hominen.

@@HearGodsWord it's not actually! Merely an observation on your knowledge. An ad hom would have been if I implied you were incorrect because you have smelly feet and a bad moustache. A simple Google scholar search using the term "arguments against the trinity" or " the problem of the Trinity" will show decades of scholarship arguing and responding to various moves and counter moves within philosophy of religion regarding trinitarian doctrine. The 1st dozen results are everything from a history of the responses to early Muslim objections to one of Swineburnes current arguments and a response article. So clearly other people think it's a significant enough problem to be publishing on it. This is an old problem with literally millennia of thought. To just hand wave it away as "not a problem" is just a bs response. That kind of dogma doesn't have any credibility.

What kind of accusation is this? That is similar to saying that Christians lie when they say baptism should be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (instead of Yahweh).

@@JoeThePresbapterian "What kind of accusation is this? That is similar to saying that Christians lie when they say baptism should be done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (instead of Yahweh)." It's such a shame that people like you can't understand the simplest scriptures. For example, you just can't get it that at Ex. 3:15, God said that his personal name is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," a name that appears thousands of times in the Bible. For instance, Moses' mother's name was Jochebed, which means "Yahweh is glory." (Ex. 6:20) Here are a few other Hebrew names that incorporate God's personal name... 1. "Jeremiah" means "Yahweh exalts." 2. "Joshua" means "Yahweh" means ""Yahweh is Salvation." 3. "Elijah " means "Yahweh is my God." 4. "Jahzeiah" means "whom Yahweh beholds. So, no, God's personal name is not "I am." (Ex. 3:14) And neither is it "Jealous." (Ex. 34:14) God's ETERNAL name is "Yahweh." As Ex. 3:15 says: "God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." *This is my name for all time."*

@@cbooth151 Sorry, I thought you were a Christian. I think I've understood your point better. And don't worry, Christians recognize that YHVH is the name of the Godhead. Each person within the Trinity (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) is YHVH.

Gavin wasn't lying. It's for this reason that Jesus used "I am" so many times.

@@HearGodsWord "Gavin wasn't lying. It's for this reason that Jesus used "I am" so many times." Clearly, you never read the 8th chapter of John. If you had read it, you would know that Jesus never claimed to be God. Consider what went way over your head... At verse 40, Jesus said to his enemies: "As it is, you want to kill me, a man who has told you the truth as I have learnt it from God." So, if Jesus were God, where did he learn the truth from? From himself? At verse 41, the Jews said to Jesus: "The only father we have is God.' In case you didn't know, Jesus is not the Father. He's the Son, the one who was sent to earth BY God. As Jesus said at John 3:17: "For God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but so that through him the world might be saved." So, tell me, if Jesus was God, who did he send into the world? Himself? At John 8:42, Jesus said to his enemies: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here." So, in this verse, did Jesus say he was God or did he say he came FROM God." And another thing, who did Jesus say God was? It was his Father, not himself. As he said to his apostles through Mary: "I am returning to him who is my Father and their Father, my God and their God.” Clearly, Jesus' God and Father was the same God and Father of his apostles. The apostle Paul agreed, saying: "We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you. Grace to you and peace from God _our_ Father." (Col. 1:3, 2) Clearly, Jesus' Father is also Jesus' God. At John 8:28, Jesus said to his enemies: "I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me." So, if Jesus were God, who could teach God something that God didn't already know? BTW, Jesus wasn't the only person who said "I am." At John 9:7, Jesus cured a beggar of blindness. And later on, people wanted to know if he was that beggar? And what did he say? He said: "I am." (Vs. 9) Do you believe that former blind beggar was making a claim to be God?

As opposed to what? What are you advocating?

James D. Gifford's book entitled 'The Hexagon of Heresy - A Historical and Theological Study of Definitional Divine Simplicity' expands on the above criticism of 'Divine Simplicity'.

@@harrymoschops - It critiques divine simplicity and replaces it with what?

@@harrymoschops that is an excellent book.

@brentonstanfield5198 it retrieves it with the historic ecclesiastical formulation of divine simplicity before the Latins ran off on their own following Augustines neo-platonic form of divine simplicity.