Some might be interested in the following discussion between William Lane Craig and Josh Rasmussen on divine aseity and abstract objects. I haven't watched it yet, and I doubt I'd entirely agree with either Craig or Rasmussen on the topics at hand, but I post it because it might be a thought-provoking discussion on subjects important in philosophical theology.
At first glance I saw the article title as "Craig and Rasmussen on divine obesity and abstract objects"...
ReplyDeleteI was like, "Eh?"
"If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine" (Ps 50:12). :)
DeleteI watched it and found myself not very impressed with the dialogue. I'm not even sure if they actually disagree with one another. Dr. Rasmussen chose a view where universals are in particulars (following Aristotle). His position was almost entirely identical with Craig and Craig had nearly no problems with his position.
DeleteI honestly thought their comments of Divine Conceptualism were pretty bad. They claimed that Conceptualist have it backwards. We think something is "brown" because it is that way. So, they would expect Divine mind to think something because the object is that way. But obviously that grew too much on a parallel between a human mode of thinking and a Divine mode of thinking. I think it may because they are freewill Theists opens them up to this idea that God's knowledge of causes by other objects but that clearly would undermine his aseity. It seems to me that they end up in the realist views they wish to avoid. That's my take.
Thanks, TheSire. That's helpful. Sounds like it might be something of a rehash of Craig's arguments in God over All or God and Abstract Objects. It's a bit disappointing to know their comments on divine conceptualism weren't particularly insightful, to say the least. I take it this video would be a better watch for people. I'm still keeping an eye out for Greg Welty's forthcoming paper(s).
Delete