Craig’s a priori argument for a three-self Trinity

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.