Nature of God

Read 15351 times


  • **
  • 583 Posts
    • View Profile
Modified Platonism & The Logos
« on: July 26, 2012, 12:24:38 pm »
Dear friends,

I'm having a discussion with a friend who holds to a modified platonism, which says that abstract objects like numbers are ontic and exist as a reflection of God's mind. In addition, these numbers would be a part God's nature, existing as part of the Logos that St. John references in his gospel and are without any explanatoral or causal creation. I have a somewhat adequate understanding of the Logos (I've listened to Dr. Craig's Defenders podcast), so my question is do numbers qualify as part of what John was speaking of when he mentioned the Logos and what justification do we have for thinking so. Also, doesn't this defeat Dr. Craig's fictionalist position.

Second, if this modified platonism is true then it seems as if it would postulate an actually infinite amount of numbers, thus an actual infinite number of things which Dr. Craig has argued against. This doesn't seem as if it would have any bearing on the kalam argument in relation to Craig's argument against an actual infinite number of things because the critical difference between numbers and events in time is the tense of the events; that there's a property of "presentness", a temporal becoming with past events, whereas numbers would exists tenselessly. Would this be correct?



  • **
  • 475 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Modified Platonism & The Logos
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2020, 09:11:53 am »
The temptation appears to be that pondering the “ideal” realm, one could come closer to God’s thoughts. This is far from the case. This type of postulate can only be put forward in a situation utterly devoid of a model for the thinking process, i.e. what is really happening as this or that entity “thinks.” Such ideation is tragically and pridefully cut off from its own existential realities. This happens because looking within is the hardest task.

Socrates gave a seemingly offhanded model in saying that thoughts in the mind are like imprints in wax. The East has a similar answer, though it has not been examined or its consequences understood, saying that thoughts are forms in the “chitta” or “mind-stuff.” If there is a spiritual soul, then during the thinking process the mind is forming images and using power to retain and recall these images, in what must be a vast inner array of its own spiritual domain. One further sees immediately that in the case of the souls there must be a process of miniaturization, as the thoughts of a lifetime are somehow retained.

Once the nature of a thought is understood, then you see there is no bridge to God or even to another thinker. Each soul is self-enclosed, having perceptions and thoughts about these perceptions. The example of numbers is cited, and if you think of “one” or “two,” at first it seems you should approach unity with others and with God. That is not the case, and to understand this you should notice at best you are generating your own private abstractions, and furthermore the roots and nature of these abstractions are all your own.

With regard to the second question, one should note there isn’t an “actual infinite” amount of ANYTHING. Minds which think this are generally lacking discrimination, making a leap in hopes of dominating everything though the mental categories are inadequate and fail to describe anything real. Infinity is something that cannot actually exist. The mind of man holds almost nothing of the cosmos, but once he can count to three he grows bold and asserts, “Now I have conquered all.” He imagines the counting can go on infinitely, though he actually only counted to three and his imagination is vain.

John referred to Jesus as the “Logos” because the Lord is the only Voice of God. Also this is a nice way to refer to the third and spiritually least side of the Trinity, similar to how Prabhupada continued to refer to the Lord as “the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” Now, there IS infinity in the time domain, that we are unfolding. Creation will not cease.