We’ve covered this before.
Craig slurs the argument, making the conclusion a bit unclear. The point is not really that a three-self trinitarian theology is just somehow superior to a unitarian theology. Rather, the point is supposed to be that the concept of a perfect being who is a self collapses into incoherence; it is perfect, yet (the idea is) lacks a feature any perfect being must have. That is, the conclusion is that a God who is a self is as contradictory as a square-circle. The “social” trinitarian view is supposed to win the race because one of its rivals blows a tire midway through the race.
In my view, this Swinburne-Davis argument has been adequately rebutted. I invite Drs. Craig, Swinburne, or Davis to respond.
Finally, note how Craig loves to associate unitarian understandings of God with Islam. A good rhetorical move, to be sure. But while most Islamic theologies are unitarian (I think some aren’t that, but instead Ultimist – positing on ineffable ultimate reality which is not a self) of course it is false that all unitarian theologies are Islamic, as evidened by Christian and Jewish unitarians, including great Christian apologists of past ages.
I’m not Craig, Swinburne, or Davis, but my response to your paper is under review for a journal. If you want, I can send you the penultimate draft. But I’m pretty sure you’re familiar with most of the moves I make.
Yes, please send it. A good answer is a good answer. I’m going to send you comments on the other paper this coming week.
Comments are closed.