Orthodox Christian Appeals to Mystery | Podcast Highlight (2021-02-16) ​

0:00:07 and we have another guest
0:00:09 uh this is neo hello neil you can hear
0:00:12 me
0:00:13 hey welcome can you
0:00:16 so just to kind of get an idea uh neo so
0:00:19 what
0:00:20 um are you a particular kind of
0:00:22 christian uh what denomination are your
0:00:24 non-denominational or
0:00:25 just give us a bit of info on uh where
0:00:27 you stand with regards to
0:00:29 christians yeah yeah i'm an oriental
0:00:31 orthodox christian so i'm part of the
0:00:33 what's called the oriental orthodox
0:00:34 church one of the three apostolic
0:00:35 churches
0:00:37 and i believe in the actual trinity i
0:00:40 don't know what that stuff was that we
0:00:41 just heard for the past
0:00:43 45 minutes but that was uh scary
0:00:46 like i can assure you that that's not
0:00:47 the trinity that's some type of
0:00:51 hindu nonsense or something i don't know
0:00:54 i don't know where he got those ideas
0:00:55 from i think he's uh
0:00:57 an independent thinker so i don't think
0:00:59 he's um
0:01:01 i think he's he's not limiting himself
0:01:04 as much as he's trying not to
0:01:05 to limit god yeah yeah yeah
0:01:08 so um with regards to the were you here
0:01:11 when we gave
0:01:12 um forward the idea of the trinity as we
0:01:15 understood it
0:01:16 um did you feel like that first part was
0:01:18 fair and then um
0:01:20 is there anything you would like to say
0:01:21 with regards to the particular critiques
0:01:24 uh we gave yeah i listened for
0:01:28 just a short moment i will say that
0:01:31 um i'll say your objections are based
0:01:34 forgive me but your objection
0:01:35 are based on some misconceptions about
0:01:38 what we actually believe
0:01:39 uh when we say trinity we believe that
0:01:41 these three are one we believe that
0:01:43 each of the hypostases and god are of
0:01:45 course fully god i think you
0:01:47 mentioned that um i would of course
0:01:50 disagree that that it's illogical we can
0:01:52 get into that if you'd like
0:01:53 and yeah we believe that these three
0:01:54 hypostases are each identical to god's
0:01:57 essence
0:01:58 identical to the god's essence but
0:02:00 distinct from each other
0:02:01 and so they're not different between
0:02:04 each other there's not something in who
0:02:06 we call the father
0:02:07 that is not in who we call the son and
0:02:10 there's only one who
0:02:11 there's there aren't three who's uh we
0:02:13 believe three hypostases each identical
0:02:15 to the essence distinct
0:02:17 to each other by relation and that one
0:02:19 simply comes from the other
0:02:22 and another comes from both in a sense
0:02:25 but they're identical in essence and
0:02:28 there aren't three essences
0:02:29 uh there's one essence there's one
0:02:32 knowledge one will
0:02:33 one uh you could say set of attributes
0:02:37 uh and we can say that in many different
0:02:39 senses
0:02:40 so to say the least that's what we
0:02:41 believe we can get into it if you like
0:02:43 yeah so when you say one knowledge um
0:02:46 but then in the bi i've already made
0:02:49 mention to this um so
0:02:50 what are your thoughts with regards to
0:02:52 the quote where jesus is where he makes
0:02:54 the claim
0:02:54 that only god knows the hour which
0:02:57 suggests
0:02:57 a distinction in knowledge as well
0:03:01 by just a surface level interpretation
0:03:03 it seems that that's what he's saying
0:03:04 that he
0:03:05 he actually does lack the knowledge uh
0:03:08 but we
0:03:08 have to make sure that we read the
0:03:10 scriptures through a certain lens and so
0:03:12 we believe as orthodox christians
0:03:13 and even catholics believe this uh that
0:03:16 that is an allegorical passage so what
0:03:18 christ is really saying there is
0:03:19 something much deeper
0:03:20 and it's actually a verse about the
0:03:22 trinity it's a verse about the father we
0:03:25 call the father
0:03:26 causing his son to be or i should say uh
0:03:30 it's it's talking about the begetting of
0:03:32 the sun or of the logos
0:03:35 um in that it's not that the sun doesn't
0:03:38 know that he doesn't have the knowledge
0:03:40 but it's that
0:03:41 the father is the first cause and he has
0:03:44 the knowledge not of himself but
0:03:46 by the father causing him to be it's
0:03:48 kind of complicated we can get into it
0:03:50 though
0:03:50 it has to do with the concept of the
0:03:52 logos in short so
0:03:54 we do have ancient uh you know what you
0:03:56 would call tafsirs of this
0:03:59 of this uh verse mark 13 32 matthew 24
0:04:01 36
0:04:03 yeah so so earlier when you were
0:04:05 explaining the trinity you
0:04:07 can you just go over that again because
0:04:09 i was a bit confused about what you said
0:04:12 sure so in short we believe that
0:04:16 god is one and we believe in one god one
0:04:18 consciousness
0:04:19 we believe that there is god in god's
0:04:22 logos
0:04:23 okay there's the self in god the very
0:04:26 true god
0:04:28 and there is his knowledge of himself
0:04:32 and god and his knowledge are really
0:04:34 distinct though his knowledge is
0:04:36 fully his essence and so
0:04:40 god he beholds himself infinitely
0:04:43 perfectly absolutely
0:04:44 because he is all-knowing his entire
0:04:47 being is also in his knowledge
0:04:49 and we call this a second hypostasis a
0:04:51 second underlying reality within god
0:04:54 and we see that this knower and the
0:04:57 thing that is known of himself
0:04:59 are identical in essence it's as if you
0:05:02 know god's looking into a mirror and
0:05:03 sees his entire being in the mirror
0:05:07 the image in the mirror of course is
0:05:08 caused by the one who bears the image
0:05:11 and the it's the exact image in this
0:05:13 analogy the physical analogy is not the
0:05:15 best
0:05:16 but he's called the logos because he is
0:05:18 the the thought which be
0:05:20 is begotten of the mind of god in
0:05:22 ancient platonic thought you know this
0:05:24 is what logos meant
0:05:25 uh all of our church fathers say the
0:05:27 same thing the early church fathers and
0:05:28 of course we still teach this today
0:05:30 that the logos is the exact image of the
0:05:33 father's hypostasis
0:05:34 even according to the scriptures that's
0:05:36 hebrews 1 3.
0:05:38 and we have many many many allegorical
0:05:39 passages and some straightforward
0:05:41 passages
0:05:43 alluding to this truth
0:05:46 so if that makes it are the father and
0:05:49 the son the same god
0:05:51 yes are they different persons
0:05:54 uh different hypostases yeah okay so how
0:05:58 can you explain how can they be
0:06:00 the same god but different persons
0:06:02 because that uh
0:06:04 classically understood that violates the
0:06:06 law of identity
0:06:09 sure so when we say i personally i avoid
0:06:12 the word persons
0:06:13 in english because people when we hear
0:06:15 when we say persons they think of maybe
0:06:17 you
0:06:17 and and i they think of three different
0:06:20 people or something
0:06:21 they think of uh you know the father
0:06:23 talking to someone called the son
0:06:25 and somehow they're they're different
0:06:27 beings but the same being
0:06:29 obviously that would violate the log not
0:06:31 a contradiction
0:06:33 you can't have two beings and one being
0:06:35 uh so i prefer the word hypostasis it's
0:06:37 used in the scriptures it's used in the
0:06:38 church father writings
0:06:40 no hypocrisy is fine but it doesn't
0:06:43 really matter if you what which
0:06:44 term you use because the claim the claim
0:06:47 is that if you are
0:06:48 saying uh for example if you say that
0:06:52 these two things
0:06:53 are the same type of thing which is god
0:06:56 but they're a different type of thing
0:06:58 hypostasis or person and we would say in
0:07:01 english
0:07:02 okay how do you actually bridge the gap
0:07:05 and explain how they can be the same
0:07:07 type of thing
0:07:09 which is god but a different type of
0:07:11 thing person do you understand
0:07:13 how that violates the law of identity
0:07:16 or not no no because they're the same in
0:07:19 tur
0:07:20 in regards to essence they are distinct
0:07:24 uh when it comes to the hypostases and
0:07:26 we see that both hypostases must exist
0:07:28 and that one exists because of the other
0:07:30 so once again
0:07:31 there is god now let's all imagine this
0:07:34 no pun intended
0:07:36 god he imagines himself in his mind
0:07:39 okay he has infinite knowledge he knows
0:07:41 everything entirely
0:07:43 and holy and so when he contemplates
0:07:46 himself
0:07:48 his entire being is in the image in his
0:07:52 mind
0:07:54 because he knows all things perfectly he
0:07:55 knows himself wholly and perfectly
0:07:58 so his the image in his mind is an exact
0:08:01 copy of the self
0:08:05 we call this the self image or the logos
0:08:08 so once again god's entire self is
0:08:12 in the image in his mind but the self
0:08:15 and the self image are distinct not by
0:08:18 substance
0:08:19 because everything his substance is is
0:08:22 in the image
0:08:23 because he is all-knowing and we see
0:08:26 here that even the self-image must exist
0:08:27 because it's
0:08:28 of course necessary that god knows
0:08:30 himself
0:08:32 and it's necessary that god is infinite
0:08:33 in knowledge and therefore knows his
0:08:34 entire self
0:08:36 yeah i mean we're get we're going on a
0:08:38 bit the point is that when you say
0:08:40 that x is the same f
0:08:43 as y you're actually saying that the two
0:08:46 things are identical
0:08:48 identical in essence but we see that
0:08:51 identical
0:08:52 identical in terms of numerical identity
0:08:56 in that they are the two are one and are
0:08:58 one god
0:08:59 yeah but we see that the knower and the
0:09:01 known
0:09:02 are distinct would you agree no what i'm
0:09:06 trying to explain to you is that in
0:09:08 logic when you say that two things are
0:09:10 the same type of thing
0:09:12 that implies that they are identical to
0:09:15 one another
0:09:16 and cannot be differed they cannot have
0:09:19 anything different about them in any
0:09:21 properties whatsoever
0:09:23 you cannot have want two things that are
0:09:26 the same type of thing
0:09:28 but a different other type of thing
0:09:31 i mean that's why we say they're not
0:09:33 different they're distinct
0:09:35 there's no difference between father and
0:09:36 son there's a distinction
0:09:38 this is a real distinction they have
0:09:40 different properties
0:09:42 no we we believe there's one set of
0:09:44 properties in god that is
0:09:45 his essence we believe in only one
0:09:49 one existence of god there is not i mean
0:09:52 you can say that one has conceptual
0:09:54 properties but there's not
0:09:55 real properties there's not something in
0:09:57 who we call god
0:09:58 in something else in who we call the
0:10:00 logos
0:10:01 is the father identity is the father
0:10:04 unbegotten
0:10:05 the father is unbegotten yes is the son
0:10:08 unbegotten
0:10:10 no the the son is begotten right they
0:10:13 have they have a difference about them
0:10:15 they're not exactly the same but the
0:10:17 distinction is by relation
0:10:19 and that one comes from the other we're
0:10:21 not going to look at what we call the
0:10:23 sun you know
0:10:24 in in theory let's say we were able to
0:10:25 see god
0:10:27 uh god forbid but we can't look into we
0:10:30 call the logos and say look there's a
0:10:32 property right there that we can't see
0:10:33 in this other hypostasis
0:10:35 because the logos is merely the self
0:10:37 it's the
0:10:38 it's the self image it's the perfect
0:10:40 image of the first hypostasis
0:10:43 yeah but unbegottenness is not a
0:10:45 property that can be shared
0:10:48 let me begin yes but when i'm i'm saying
0:10:50 it's not a real
0:10:52 property do you get what i'm saying it's
0:10:53 not an actual thing which is really
0:10:56 distinct from the essence
0:10:58 it is because it's it's either a part
0:11:00 it's either a part of the essence or
0:11:02 it's part of the person
0:11:04 okay let's get into it's a property
0:11:07 it's a property of the person of the
0:11:09 father
0:11:12 it's not a real property a real thing
0:11:14 which is really distinct from the
0:11:15 essence though
0:11:16 we i mean i'm sure you would admit that
0:11:18 god must know his
0:11:20 self he must have an image of himself in
0:11:23 his mind
0:11:24 well it has to either be a property of
0:11:26 the essence or it's not and if it's not
0:11:28 then what is that property of
0:11:30 you're saying it's not a property
0:11:31 whatsoever we would say
0:11:34 we believe in something called divine
0:11:35 simplicity that you know god has not
0:11:36 composed the parts
0:11:38 that whatever prophet properties we can
0:11:40 attribute to god are his essence
0:11:42 we don't think there's a real
0:11:44 distinction between god's knowledge
0:11:47 god's uh love god's power and likewise
0:11:50 we're not going to say that there's
0:11:51 something in god called
0:11:52 unbegottenness begottenness and
0:11:54 procession
0:11:55 yeah but are the persons identical to
0:11:57 the essence
0:11:59 the persons are identical to the essence
0:12:00 yes okay so are the persons identical to
0:12:03 one another
0:12:05 in essence okay so look
0:12:08 now you're making a clarification when i
0:12:10 say are the persons identical to the
0:12:13 essence
0:12:14 you're saying yes meaning that they're
0:12:16 the exact same thing as the essence
0:12:18 but then when i ask if they're identical
0:12:20 to one another you're not giving a clear
0:12:22 yes
0:12:23 answer so that shows that there's
0:12:25 something different
0:12:26 between the two persons you're you're
0:12:29 saying these two things are identical to
0:12:31 this one other thing which is the
0:12:33 essence
0:12:34 that implies that if those two things
0:12:36 are identical to that other
0:12:38 thing which is the essence they have to
0:12:40 be identical to one another
0:12:42 and you can't say that that's the whole
0:12:44 problem
0:12:45 i mean they're distinct in hypo this is
0:12:47 part of the mystery of the trinity of
0:12:48 course but we see how it must be the
0:12:50 case
0:12:51 and you know we're talking about whether
0:12:52 or not the trinity makes sense right of
0:12:54 course
0:12:55 right and we can see this cannot be
0:12:57 polytheism obviously it's it's one god
0:12:59 since you think the three are identical
0:13:01 even in hypostasis it's
0:13:02 it's one god this is the christian
0:13:04 teaching on the trinity first off
0:13:06 but would you agree that well
0:13:10 i guess i have a question for you do you
0:13:12 believe in divine simplicity or
0:13:14 or what is your school of thought in in
0:13:15 islam are you uh
0:13:18 nothing we don't believe in divine
0:13:21 simplicity but
0:13:22 before we get into that we we want to
0:13:26 stick on this point
0:13:27 point because you said well when i when
0:13:29 i made that point and i think you
0:13:30 understood it you said well
0:13:32 at this point sort of the trinity is a
0:13:34 mystery which
0:13:35 i can understand what you're saying but
0:13:38 i want to make clear
0:13:39 that you and the audience understood the
0:13:42 point that i was trying to make
0:13:44 and give you a chance to resolve that
0:13:47 apparent problem if you don't think you
0:13:49 can and that at that point
0:13:51 it's where you have to say it's a
0:13:53 mystery that's fine i'm not
0:13:54 like disrespecting you but i just want
0:13:57 to understand that that's what you're
0:13:58 saying
0:14:00 i mean it's we can see how this must be
0:14:03 the case and of course god has revealed
0:14:05 to us that this is the case that he's a
0:14:06 trinity as to how
0:14:09 it is that his nature exists in this way
0:14:12 you know i i'm not sure
0:14:14 uh but we can just kind of look at
0:14:17 everything and say well
0:14:18 yeah there's god and there's god's
0:14:21 self-knowledge and these are really
0:14:24 distinct
0:14:25 would you agree with that so far there's
0:14:27 god and there's god's knowledge and
0:14:28 these are really distinct
0:14:29 under and i don't know if jake wants to
0:14:31 so you don't mind me jumping into you
0:14:33 jake
0:14:34 uh no go ahead i don't mind no i was
0:14:35 going to say and because you mentioned
0:14:37 that you believe in divine simplicity
0:14:40 now under the doctrine of divine
0:14:42 simplicity
0:14:43 the attributes or the uh persons
0:14:47 would have to be identical to the
0:14:48 essence and each property would have to
0:14:51 be identical to each other property
0:14:53 you couldn't distinguish any of them
0:14:57 well yeah but these aren't real
0:14:58 properties
0:15:00 these are human concepts that we add
0:15:01 tribute to god that's what we call them
0:15:02 attributes
0:15:03 yeah but what about what is god he's
0:15:05 above these things the persons are not
0:15:07 just human
0:15:08 constructs they're right yeah these are
0:15:10 real things
0:15:12 so if these three persons are real
0:15:14 things and they're distinct
0:15:16 they cannot be identical to one another
0:15:19Music 0:15:20 they can be identical in essence as i've
0:15:23 shown that
0:15:23 god if he beholds himself in his mind
0:15:28 in what we call the logos the logos must
0:15:30 be an
0:15:31 exact image if there's anything less in
0:15:34 the logos then god does not know his
0:15:36 entire self
0:15:38 if there's anything more than the logos
0:15:40 then once again god does not
0:15:42 have a perfect image of himself and his
0:15:44 mind meaning he's not all-knowing
0:15:46 but if he is all-knowing and if his
0:15:48 knowledge is perfect
0:15:51 the logos must be the exact image of the
0:15:54 father's hypostasis as the scripture
0:15:56 says and as saint paul said
0:15:57 yeah but let me explain something to you
0:15:59 about how identity works
0:16:01 so you before you said that the two part
0:16:04 that the
0:16:05 let's just take the father and the son
0:16:07 the father and the son
0:16:08 are identical to the essence of god this
0:16:11 is what your claim was
0:16:13 now if in in logic if
0:16:16 a is identical to b and b
0:16:19 is identical to c then it follows
0:16:22 logically that
0:16:23 a is identical to c so if you're
0:16:26 comparing
0:16:26 these two things which is the father and
0:16:29 the sun and you're saying that they are
0:16:31 identical
0:16:32 to the essence then it follows logically
0:16:35 that the father and the son
0:16:37 are identical to one another which is
0:16:39 the very same thing that you
0:16:41 or an orthodox christian would want to
0:16:44 deny
0:16:44 so that's where the conflict is yeah i
0:16:47 mean i
0:16:47 i wouldn't bring this this uh
0:16:51 x equals essence y equals s and z equals
0:16:53 that since therefore x equals y and y
0:16:55 equals z
0:16:55 thing i think that this can apply to the
0:16:57 physical world but
0:16:58 there is no physical analogy for the
0:17:00 trinity this is uh
0:17:02 it's a very mysterious thing as we get
0:17:03 into metaphysics and
0:17:05 and we see that somehow there must be
0:17:08 three underlying realities
0:17:10 though one existence yeah but this is
0:17:13 this is not a this is not a physical law
0:17:16 this is a necessary logical law
0:17:18 but we see it's necessary that there
0:17:20 must be god's knowledge and that god's
0:17:22 knowledge
0:17:23 must be the exact image of himself
0:17:28 i can't explain that but we see how that
0:17:30 must be the case because god is
0:17:32 necessary
0:17:33 or necessarily all-knowing i think i
0:17:35 think you're understanding the problem
0:17:37 because
0:17:38 when i broke it down you're basically
0:17:40 saying well this is a physical law
0:17:42 it's not a physical law it's a logical
0:17:45 law or
0:17:46 something that is uh metaphysical that
0:17:48 would apply to god in the sense
0:17:50 now it seems almost like you're starting
0:17:53 to go down
0:17:54 at this point the same path of the
0:17:56 previous
0:17:57 individual in which you're leaning
0:18:00 towards saying well this
0:18:01 this classical law of identity doesn't
0:18:04 apply to god is that right
0:18:07 um i'm not saying that it's it i
0:18:11 it's possible i lack knowledge on this
0:18:12 certain part it's just i i can't explain
0:18:14 how there are three hypostases i can
0:18:16 explain
0:18:17 how there are if that makes sense even
0:18:20 though i just repeat the same thing
0:18:21 um i if
0:18:25 if we can maybe move on and and
0:18:28 uh it's possible i just don't have the
0:18:29 proper answer when it comes to this
0:18:31 no that's fine let's just say that in
0:18:33 the beginning
0:18:34 um your name is neo right yep
0:18:38 yeah so so in the beginning neo when you
0:18:40 came on it seemed like you were saying
0:18:42 that there was some kind of like a
0:18:43 mischaracterization of
0:18:45 what we call the logical problem of the
0:18:47 trinity but then
0:18:49 uh further down the line you seem to be
0:18:51 appealing to mystery
0:18:52 and saying that well this is mysterious
0:18:54 and we can't understand it so
0:18:57 fine that's okay i mean appealing to
0:18:58 mystery i think
0:19:00 in certain cases is fine but i think
0:19:02 that does mean that you do
0:19:04 acknowledge that there is a logical
0:19:06 problem of the trinity
0:19:07 because otherwise why would why else
0:19:09 would you appeal to mystery
0:19:10 no i i mean we believe that there are
0:19:13 mysteries we think that if you could fit
0:19:15 god in your head
0:19:16 it's not god uh yeah yeah but say
0:19:19 there's a logical problem with saying
0:19:21 god is body parts
0:19:22 or denying divine simplicity yeah but at
0:19:24 this point you're at least
0:19:26 acknowledging that i've brought up a
0:19:28 good point
0:19:29 that you have to maybe think about and
0:19:32 then come back and have a further
0:19:34 discussion on
0:19:35 and i think what brother abdul was
0:19:37 trying to point out
0:19:38 is that in the beginning it seemed like
0:19:41 you were charging us with
0:19:43 our um basically objections to the
0:19:46 trinity were based on misconceptions
0:19:49 but i think it's been shown now that
0:19:51 it's not based on a misconception
0:19:54 it's based on what we see is a
0:19:56 legitimate problem
0:19:57 and at the very least is an apparent
0:20:00 problem
0:20:00 which you yourself right now don't
0:20:03 necessarily have a good answer for
0:20:05 i think that's fair where we're at right
0:20:06 now well i mean your misconception led
0:20:09 to you
0:20:09 thinking the trinity is polytheism
0:20:11 because you i'm showing you you guys you
0:20:13 know with all respect you didn't even
0:20:15 know what the trinity was
0:20:16 i do know what eternity is have you
0:20:18 heard of the explanation that i give
0:20:20 and have you read the church yes i have
0:20:23 okay who have you read from the church
0:20:25 fathers about this
0:20:27 well we don't have to give let's hear it
0:20:29 we don't we don't have to get into what
0:20:31 i've read
0:20:32 but what i'm saying i mean what what i'm
0:20:34 saying to you is i can show you
0:20:36 how the trinity can be understood in a
0:20:39 polytheistic fashion
0:20:41 what you're doing and what your model
0:20:43 typically would fall under
0:20:45 would uh kind of lean more towards
0:20:47 modalism
0:20:48 in the collapse of the persons because
0:20:51 of the fact that you cannot explain
0:20:53 really how they are distinct from one
0:20:56 another
0:20:56 by being somehow also identical to one
0:20:59 another
0:21:00 so there's a split there's different
0:21:02 models of the trinity
0:21:03 in different directions you can go with
0:21:05 it and either way
0:21:07 when you go one way you wind up with a
0:21:09 sort of modalistic picture
0:21:11 while on the other hand with things like
0:21:14 social trinitarianism
0:21:16 you wind up with a polytheistic version
0:21:18 of god
0:21:19 which even other christians who reject
0:21:22 social trinitarianism
0:21:23 would agree with and i think even if i
0:21:26 explain to you what that is if you don't
0:21:27 know already
0:21:28 you would even notice it okay yeah i
0:21:31 agree yeah
0:21:34 okay so you agree with the fact that
0:21:36 social trinitarianism
0:21:37 results in polytheism right
0:21:40 yeah i mean it is i wouldn't even put
0:21:43 the word trinitarianism in there i think
0:21:45 that'd be a blasphemy
0:21:46 it's just tripartite it's three beings
0:21:49 it's okay nonsense
0:21:50 yes but you you you are you do know
0:21:53 or you should know that there are
0:21:56 a lot of christians who maybe you're not
0:21:59 even comfortable calling them christians
0:22:00 i don't know
0:22:01 i don't really care the point is that
0:22:03 there are people who are claiming to be
0:22:05 christians
0:22:06 very popular apologists such as william
0:22:09 lane craig
0:22:10 richard swinburne these are protestants
0:22:12 right
0:22:13 well well no richard i mean they're like
0:22:15 the ahmadi of
0:22:16 of christianity it's richard they got
0:22:19 their own thing going on
0:22:20 richard swinburne belongs to the eastern
0:22:22 orthodox church
0:22:23 but nevertheless he does so
0:22:26 the point my point is that it
0:22:30 is popular in christian apologetics
0:22:32 today
0:22:33 especially in contemporary christian
0:22:35 philosophy in this idea of a social
0:22:37 trinity which you
0:22:38 are agreeing as polytheism so i'm saying
0:22:42 that broadly speaking there's two models
0:22:45 very broadly there's two sorts of models
0:22:47 and i'm arguing
0:22:48 that if you go one way and you define
0:22:51 the persons in such a way that they
0:22:53 aren't distinct enough
0:22:55 you wind up with this modalistic problem
0:22:57 where they're identical to each other
0:22:59 which is i think what you've sort of
0:23:00 collapsed into
0:23:02 on the other hand if you define the
0:23:03 persons
0:23:05 so separately from one another then you
0:23:07 wind up with
0:23:08 social trinitarianism or a version of
0:23:11 polytheism or tritheism so i don't think
0:23:14 that uh
0:23:15 we especially myself we've
0:23:18 misrepresented
0:23:19 anything about christianity or the
0:23:21 trinity whatsoever
0:23:22 and anytime we did bring up the issue of
0:23:25 polytheism
0:23:26 this is sort of what we're referring to
0:23:28 i would say that you don't necessarily
0:23:30 have a
0:23:30 problem with polytheism right now but
0:23:32 you have an incoherence
0:23:34 in your own model in saying that these
0:23:36 two things are identical to the essence
0:23:38 but then they're not identical to one
0:23:40 another and this violates the law of
0:23:42 identity
0:23:42 which basically collapses into modalism
0:23:45 that's the argument for you
0:23:46 okay so i have a couple questions so
0:23:49 first off do you believe that there's a
0:23:50 real distinction between god's
0:23:53 you know self and his knowledge yes or
0:23:55 no
0:23:57 what do you mean by that between god and
0:24:00 his knowledge do you think that there's
0:24:01 a real distinction between the two
0:24:04 there is god and there is his knowledge
0:24:05 and these are two realities within god
0:24:08 on the islamic conception yeah because
0:24:11 you said you did not believe in divine
0:24:12 simplicity
0:24:13 no we don't believe we don't believe in
0:24:15 divine simplicity
0:24:17 so you believe that there's god and
0:24:18 there's god's knowledge
0:24:20 are you aware neo that the problem with
0:24:22 divine simplicity is uh
0:24:24 when you talk about attributes or even
0:24:26 persons
0:24:28 they are in essence talking about the
0:24:29 same thing
0:24:32 and there's no distinction between them
0:24:34 so there's no distinction
0:24:36 yeah so for example god's knowledge and
0:24:39 god's wrath
0:24:40 and god's love and god's mercy would all
0:24:43 be identical
0:24:44 under divine simplicity in a sense and
0:24:47 then of course in another sense they're
0:24:49 not
0:24:49 yeah of course no no it's not even in
0:24:52 the sense that they're not
0:24:53 yes so for example
0:24:56 under divine one of the criticisms of
0:24:58 divine simplicity uh
0:25:01 that has been brought up is the fact
0:25:02 that it collapses
0:25:04 in which there are no uh distinguishing
0:25:07 attributes within god
0:25:09 they're all identical to the essence the
0:25:11 attribute is identical to the essence
0:25:14 yes but these the attributes are merely
0:25:17 human concepts that we attribute to him
0:25:19 in the first place
0:25:21 right they're identical to the essence
0:25:22 in the sense that whatever god has
0:25:24 he is in the sense in which these
0:25:27 attributes are not his essence it's
0:25:28 they're
0:25:29 human concepts that we're observing in
0:25:30 creation we didn't look at god
0:25:33 we looked at creation and attributed
0:25:35 these ideas so
0:25:36 does god really have knowledge well no
0:25:39 he's above that
0:25:40 you know the scriptures say his his true
0:25:42 name is is unknown to all men it's above
0:25:43 all the names that we attribute to him
0:25:46 yeah he's the infinite one he's not in
0:25:48 origin
0:25:49 neo so inaudible i agree with you in the
0:25:51 fact that the attributes of god are not
0:25:53 something
0:25:54 it's something that we come to
0:25:55 understand through the nature of the
0:25:57 universe isn't it so we're not saying
0:25:58 that they are identical
0:26:00 to god yeah so we come to know that
0:26:03 there is
0:26:04 a creator because we sense creation that
0:26:07 there's a necessary being or
0:26:09 a self-sufficient eternal being because
0:26:12 there are contingent beings
0:26:13 ice dependent beings that exist so we
0:26:16 come to these conclusions
0:26:18 however under the model of divine
0:26:21 simplicity
0:26:22 coming to that conclusion that god is
0:26:25 the creator
0:26:26 he's self-sufficient he's merc uh he's
0:26:29 has knowledge all of these uh
0:26:31 you know necessary attributes that they
0:26:32 talk about would have to be
0:26:34 identical to one another and be
0:26:36 identical to the uh
0:26:38 to the essence of god under that model
0:26:42 how do you and you you mentioned
0:26:43 obviously you said that attributes are
0:26:45 something that we
0:26:46 mentally construct yeah by observation
0:26:48 of the universe
0:26:50 but under the the model of divine
0:26:52 simplicity how do you affirm
0:26:54 the persons of god as being distinct
0:26:57 while also accepting that they're all
0:26:59 the same god i have to know i'm it's a
0:27:03 genuine question because i've never
0:27:04 understood
0:27:05 how uh divine simplicities if that's the
0:27:08 word
0:27:09 to use how they reconcile under
0:27:11 trinitarian view
0:27:13 the fact that you have different you
0:27:15 know persons of god
0:27:16 but they're exactly the same as god but
0:27:19 they're also exactly
0:27:20 differentiating between themselves
0:27:23 distinct
0:27:24 yeah yeah so
0:27:27 that's a good question so first and
0:27:28 foremost of course it's by god's
0:27:29 revelation to us that we know this for a
0:27:31 fact
0:27:31 he's revealed himself as a trinity he's
0:27:34 revealed himself as god
0:27:35 his logos and his you know internal
0:27:37 operation or his spirit
0:27:39 you know the breath uh you know
0:27:42 we can see we can work off of logic and
0:27:44 see wow this this
0:27:45 must be the case because within this
0:27:49 uh you know self-comprehension analogy
0:27:50 we see there must be a knower and we
0:27:52 must
0:27:53 see that there's a thing that is known
0:27:54 of course for god to know
0:27:56 there must be a thought for him to think
0:27:58 there must be a thought
0:27:59 so there's a thinker there's a thought
0:28:02 and there's a thinking you know the
0:28:05 thinker uses the thinking to know the
0:28:06 thought
0:28:07 like the thought must know the thinker
0:28:09 with the thing okay
0:28:10 yeah oh is it the case you know god
0:28:13 knows best but
0:28:14 we see that it must be the case we must
0:28:17 appeal the mystery at some point
0:28:19 if we don't i mean it's a creation that
0:28:22 we're thinking of
0:28:23 do you think god's existence is
0:28:24 necessary
0:28:26 of course yeah do you think god's one
0:28:29 act of creation is identical to his
0:28:31 essence
0:28:33 god's uh in himself yes but it is not
0:28:36 necessary
0:28:38 okay so god's act of creation is
0:28:41 identical
0:28:42 to his essence which is necessary
0:28:45 so again you you wind up having the the
0:28:48 same issue
0:28:49 that you either have what's called the
0:28:50 modal collapse i don't know if you're
0:28:52 sure
0:28:52 heard of the motor collapse yes so
0:28:56 you have on the one hand you either have
0:28:58 to accept the modal collapse
0:29:00 because of what i'm just explaining or
0:29:03 you you say there is no motor collapse
0:29:06 and you wind up with the same
0:29:08 problem that we just explained about the
0:29:10 law of identity when you say
0:29:12 that god's existence is necessary
0:29:15 god's one act of creation is identical
0:29:19 to his existence
0:29:20 and therefore that would have to be
0:29:22 necessary but that's the very thing
0:29:24 that orthodox christianity denies when
0:29:26 it says
0:29:27 that god's act of creation is free and
0:29:30 not necessary so you have an
0:29:32 internal contradiction in your model
0:29:35 i i say that there's something beyond
0:29:39 our comprehension that we
0:29:40 we you know can't even really explain i
0:29:42 mean when it comes to
0:29:43 god being the infinite one how can we
0:29:45 even describe infinity
0:29:47 we can never name anything precisely
0:29:51 of god in the first place but i mean
0:29:54 on the contra to the contrary if you if
0:29:56 you think that it is not his essence
0:29:59 and that it's something else there's
0:30:00 something else existing alongside for
0:30:03 all of eternity
0:30:04 alongside god for all of you meaning
0:30:06 it's another god
0:30:07 it's another existence there's nothing
0:30:09 outside of god
0:30:10 but anyway i believe his act of creation
0:30:13 is eternal right
0:30:14 or did he begin to create which would
0:30:17 cause him to change
0:30:20 no so you want to say something yeah i
0:30:22 know he's gonna say
0:30:23 see neo what you'll seem to be doing
0:30:25 because you seem to be moving from being
0:30:26 a divine simplicity
0:30:28 believing in divine simplicity yeah and
0:30:31 then moving away from divine simplicity
0:30:33 when it becomes problematic because of
0:30:35 the the
0:30:36 logical implication or entailment of
0:30:38 that particular
0:30:39 uh belief system um by saying well it's
0:30:42 a mystery yeah
0:30:44 i'm just saying is that look if if
0:30:46 you're gonna affirm something about god
0:30:48 like saying that god is
0:30:50 a divinely simple being then you have to
0:30:53 accept all of its logical entailments
0:30:55 for it
0:30:56 i don't think what you can do is simply
0:30:58 say well we affirm it here
0:30:59 when it's convenient and then you know
0:31:02 when
0:31:03 there are questions that we cannot
0:31:04 reconcile because obviously our minds
0:31:06 are limited
0:31:07 we suddenly leave it and then appeal to
0:31:10 mystery
0:31:10 you know um because divine simplicity
0:31:13 like i said
0:31:14 entails that the attributes are exactly
0:31:17 the same as the
0:31:18 essence and there's no distinction
0:31:20 between any of the attributes
0:31:22 they're all exactly the same now even if
0:31:25 you turn around
0:31:26 and say well that's a mental
0:31:27 construction because of observation of
0:31:29 the universe
0:31:30 but when christians talk about a trinity
0:31:33 they're not talking about human
0:31:34 construction
0:31:35 of god they are talking about these
0:31:38 things as being
0:31:39 real things yeah they are concrete
0:31:42 realities
0:31:43 that exist but they're on the one hand
0:31:47 identical to this divinely simple being
0:31:50 god but at the same time you're not
0:31:53 accepting the fact that
0:31:54 divine simplicity would then entail that
0:31:56 they would have to be
0:31:58 identical to each other because that
0:32:00 goes against the christian doctrine
0:32:02 yeah uh you know in terms of the fact
0:32:04 that they are distinct persons
0:32:05 and that's the problem the problem here
0:32:07 is that you've got two
0:32:08 positions two propositions or two belief
0:32:10 claims that you're holding
0:32:12 they don't they don't reconcile and it's
0:32:15 not the problem of
0:32:17 mystery it's the problem of the claims
0:32:20 that are being made
0:32:21 are not reconcilable yeah
0:32:24 um i think we have a couple other people
0:32:28 waiting
0:32:29 we might want to uh bring somebody else
0:32:31 on brother youssef i don't know
0:32:34 if you're there or uh i don't know if
0:32:36 neo wants to make it a little quite last
0:32:40 yeah
0:32:42 uh yeah i enjoyed this i mean i'll say
0:32:43 that you know we there's there's
0:32:45 apatheticism there's cataphasies of
0:32:47 course
0:32:48 i mean we can say that this cannot be
0:32:50 the case uh the following things cannot
0:32:52 be the case
0:32:53 that god is composite and so therefore
0:32:55 he's simple
0:32:56 how can we understand that he's simple
0:32:58 by being apathetic we know that he
0:33:00 cannot be composite because he's not a
0:33:01 finite being
0:33:03 uh he does not begin to create
0:33:06 he does not change therefore he's
0:33:08 outside of time but what does outside of
0:33:09 time even mean
0:33:12 who knows god knows and whatever that is
0:33:14 whatever you know
0:33:15 the perfect description of that you know
0:33:18 being outside of time
0:33:20 or of that infinity the infinite aspect
0:33:23 of god
0:33:24 no one knows how to name that because
0:33:26 the name is his essence no one can
0:33:28 comprehend the essence we we only know
0:33:29 him by creation
0:33:31 and so at the end of the day we're
0:33:32 always going to be making analogies and
0:33:33 analogies
0:33:34 never is there going to be an absolutely
0:33:36 perfect
0:33:38 analogy it seems that we can kind of
0:33:41 come closer and closer to precision
0:33:45 when it comes to this but we got to be
0:33:46 apathetic we know that
0:33:49 god does not begin to create and so
0:33:53 therefore god creates
0:33:55 in a sense we can say he creates
0:33:56 eternally that is to say outside of time
0:33:59 and because there's only god outside of
0:34:01 time there's nothing else outside of
0:34:02 time
0:34:03 then there's only god's essence outside
0:34:05 of time but seeing that also in concept
0:34:08 because actually we could say that god
0:34:10 his act of creation is outside of time
0:34:12 we can therefore say that god's act of
0:34:14 creation is his essence
0:34:17 but again because these analogies are
0:34:18 not absolutely 100 perfect
0:34:21 we have to appeal to mystery at some
0:34:22 point and if we don't
0:34:24 we'd have to say that god is composite
0:34:26 that god is finite
0:34:28 that a human being can understand the
0:34:30 fullness in every single thing about god
0:34:32 which of course would just make him part
0:34:34 of creation
0:34:36 so if that makes sense but i did
0:34:39 enjoy this discussion hopefully uh in
0:34:41 the future thanks neo appreciate you
0:34:43 know cool till next time