Is Divine Simplicity Compatible with Trinitarianism? | Dr. Rob Koons & Dr. Ryan Mullins

Is divine simplicity compatible with there being one God in three persons? Buckle up for a very illuminating exchange.

Rob's relational qua-object paper:

Ryan's three papers on Trinitarianism:

[matthewantero]

This channel is criminally underexposed

[Davestertl]

I'm not much of a philosopher (in fact, even "not much" is orobably giving myself too much credit), but I deeply appreciate what you're doing on the channel, Joe. You're obviously a great guy, and I hope to keep seeing what becomes of the channel and to learn from you!

[juanfranciscotejada]

Joe, I have to thank you for being the person you are. Nowadays, many atheists/agnostics are vitriolic, disrespectful, and do not further the philosophical cause.

You are not like that. You are a true philosopher, your work makes me exited to study more. Keep it up!

[SuperTonydd]

God is Being
God is Knower
God is Known

[irememberyou]

Joe,
Your channel and your blog is just fire.. straight fire. thanks for all these awesome content.

[DryApologist]

My thoughts on the worry at 1:19:38 (about the Godhead being Trinitarian and therefore the persons being Trinitarian themselves). I would say that the nature = the general set of properties, which originate with God the Father (maybe what Dr. Koons was calling 'first order' properties). So, the persons of the Trinity then partake of those general set of properties, which originate with God the Father. So, there is a distinction between the 'general set of properties' and the persons that partake of those general set of properties. So, each person of the Trinity is not a new Trinity because each person is not a new set of general properties, rather each person partakes of the one set of general properties that originate with God the Father. I think Dr. Koons seems to hold this type of conception from what I could tell. I think distinguishing that the set of general properties originate with God the Father though helps account for why the general set of properties are not then their own being or person apart from the three divine persons.

[SuperTonydd]

God as grounded in Mind/ Being is the foundation for a strong doctrine of divine simplicity.

[SuperTonydd]

God is a Mind that simultaneously Knows, is Knower and is Knowledge; that's how you solve divine simplify. The peak of the physical universe is Mind itself, mind as the image of God. Discard the physical and Mind is not incompatible with non physical nature. The outputs of mind are abstract thought. Full knowledge is unitive; love. To know is to love

[DarwinsGreatestHits]

This will be interesting. Two heavyweights here.

[stephenbrown]

I really enjoyed this exchange. Thanks. Keep it up!

[anglozombie]

YES A NEW VIDEO. Actually I feel like I agree more with Koons on this one.

[thescoobymike]

Makes it all the more complicated when one person of the trinity is also considered fully human

[cmptadorientem]

Mullins claims beginning at 15:35 that the fact that the relation between the Father and Son (for example) is causal is "very explicit in the creeds" but then proceeds to give no example of any creed that actually says this. He just rattles off a list of theologians who presumably agree with him (assuming Mullins has interpreted them correctly), but cites no text from any creed that says this explicitly. And his quotation from Heron subverts his point, since as Heron notes, "begotten" denotes that which has a "cause *or source*" (my emphasis) outside itself. So Mullins's claim that this is "not up for debate" is laughable. Indeed, on some senses of "cause" (including, importantly, on my view, the correct sense), the claim that the Father causes the Son is heretical and therefore the exact opposite of Mullins's claim is correct: its denial is not up for debate.

[slamrn]

I like your hair cut Joe. Ryan always looks to me that he is sitting behind a drum set in that corner, especially with the guitar sticking up. There is such a thing as "the Mullins sigh". Maybe now I'll pay attention to what is being said.

[josephtnied]

I'm struggling to understand how God "being known by Himself" constitutes a distinct "awareness" or person, or how God "being known by Himself and knowing Himself" (which sounds like "God knowing that He knows Himself") does either. I feel like those "states of awareness" just reduce back down to God being alone. I'll have to think about it.

[SpaceDin]

Good stuff. You’d definitely would be a disciple of Jesus if he showed up in this time period.

[jffink]

44:18 I looked up looked up Augustine's On the trinity 5.3-5.5, and I can't find any mention of God having no properties. Where is Mullins pulling this from?

[davidcoleman]

Hello, Joe! Have you written a reply to Koons' paper, or are you aware of one written by somebody else?

[ahlal-haqq]

Us Sunnī Muslims don’t affirm ADS Because of the Act/Attribute being Identical to the essence. If God is Al-Khaliq then he must be Eternally Creating.

Great vid Joe.

[blamtasticful]

1:17:44 Just casually mentioning some really cool and important work in game theory to then address the question lol. My favorite part for sure.