Thursday, June 07, 2018

3D chess

But wait… the Trinity just is the one true God – that’s what it is for a theology to be trinitarian. To be numerically identical to the one God, that entails being divine, surely. So the Trinity is a divine being, and the Son (given that “Jesus is God”) is a divine being. But they’re plainly not the same being, as they differ: one is tripersonal, and the other is in some sense 1/3 of the Trinity.

But why the “in”? Perhaps his idea is that we can encounter a whole by (“in”) one of its parts?

Is, then, he saying more than than Jesus is a part of the one God, and should be called “YHWH”?

Tuggy suffers from a persistent mental block on this issue. That's due in some measure to his atrophied conceptual resources. 

i) For instance, the part/whole distinction can break down when we shift from physical objects to abstract objects. Take Hilbert's Hotel, which plays on the counterintuitive implications of actual infinite mathematical sets. 

Even when Hilbert Hotel is full, there's always vacancies. It can accommodate a finite stream of new guests if the current guests vacate their room and move one room over, since there is never a last room. 

There's even room for an infinite stream of new guests. Just put all the current guests in even-numbered rooms and the new guests in odd-numbered rooms. 

There are different rules when dealing with timeless, spaceless objections. Tuggy is unable to make that mental adjustment. 

ii) To recur to another illustration, if you have two mirrors facing each other, they generate reciprocal reflections. Each mirror doesn't contain half the image. Rather, each mirror contains the whole image. Two-in-one. You can see each of the two mirrors reflected in either one. 

Unitarians play 2D chess while Trinitarians play 3D chess.

No comments:

Post a Comment