Chad McIntosh

Chad McIntosh is a PhD student in Philosophy at Cornell University.


  1. Dale Tuggy
    March 4, 2015 @ 2:08 pm

    One other comment, this time about Craig. I see him in his later piece backing off the claim that the Person-Trinity relation is a part-whole relation. I think his real core point is just that the existence of the Persons supervenes solely on facts about the “soul” which is God. I think this is what he had in mind, although he is none too clear about it…

  2. Dale Tuggy
    March 4, 2015 @ 2:06 pm

    Thanks for the post, Chad.

    I’m not sure how much help is here for Craig and Hasker… It is not, properly, the mountain as a whole which “supports” the peak, but only the lower portion of it, right?

    As for the whole being posterior to the parts… I think people’s intuitions go both ways. Don’t some think that the part, as part, is posterior to the whole, but others think that a whole exists because (and so must be logically posterior to) its parts? And some will say that it depends on the whole…

    About the mtn, I would think (granting that there are such things), that such exist because the parts exist. They could exist without it, and not vice-versa. And the parts have to be in place just so for the mtn to exist. So they’re prior to it, right?

    About the circle… I don’t have intuitions about whether the semi-circles are prior to the circle or vice-versa. I can imagine either existing without the other, and I don’t see that the existence of either explains the other.

    The flag example, I think, presupposes that there is such a relation in the world as constitution. I’ve never been inclined to grant that…

    In your examples I see three different controversial metaphysical claims; I’m not sure I can see any underlying sense of “supports” there.

    Anyway, for Craig, insofar as he wants to insist that the Persons of the Trinity are parts of it… He’ll say that the parts (i.e. Persons) of the Trinity exist because the whole Trinity (the sum of the parts) exists? That just rules out the traditional aseity of the Father, right? But I guess maybe you’ll discuss that in another post.