I'm going to comment on Tuggy's "challenge":
1. A basic problem with his 9-point syllogism is the undefined term "God". What is meant by "God"? What does that denote? What does that word stand for?
Here's one way of unpacking the usage. In Christian theology, "God" denotes the Trinity. Suppose we substitute "the Trinity" for "God" in Tuggy's syllogism:
- Jesus and the Trinity differ.
- Things which differ are two (i.e. are not numerically identical)
- Therefore, Jesus and the Trinity are two (not numerically identical). (1, 2)
- For any x and y, x and y are the same only if x and y are not two (i.e. are numerically identical).
- Therefore, Jesus and the Trinity are not the same. (3,4)
- There is only one Trinity.
- Therefore, either God is not the Trinity, or Jesus is not the Trinity. (5, 6)
- God is the Trinity.
- Therefore, Jesus is not the Trinity. (7,8)
Notice how Tuggy's syllogism instantly unravels. It's true that Jesus is not the Trinity. But that does nothing to obviate the deity of Christ.
2. Another approach is to define God by his attributes (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, aseity, impassibility, timelessness, spacelessness) and actions (e.g. creator of the world).
There is only one kind of being with that set of attributes (and actions). However, that allows for the following distinction:
i) One kind
ii) One or more individuals of the same kind
A kind (or genus) may be singular or unique, but allow for two or more individuals in kind. Putting it another way, to define God as a set of attributes is to define God as a genus (with due apologies to Aquinas).
Even if there's only one divine genus, that doesn't mean there cannot be two or more individuals that share the same genus. Suppose we plug that into Tuggy's syllogism:
- God-kind and Jesus differ.
- Things which differ are two (i.e. are not numerically identical)
- Therefore, God-kind and Jesus are two (not numerically identical). (1, 2)
- For any x and y, x and y are the same only if x and y are not two (i.e. are numerically identical).
- Therefore, God-kind and Jesus are not the same. (3,4)
- There is only one God-kind.
But at that point the syllogism begins to unravel. Jesus can belong to the divine genus or God-kind, but differ from God-kind inasmuch as the genus is a broader or more inclusive category. God-kind and the Father differ.
3. Tuggy's syllogism depends on calling Jesus "God". If, however, we we were to recast the question in terms of "Jesus is divine," or the "deity of Christ", then his syllogism would fall apart. It's a semantic ruse.
4. In addition, the way he frames the issue conceals ambiguities concerning what it means for something to be "only one".
Consider the Mandelbrot set. Suppose there is only one Mandelbrot set. Yet the Mandelbrot set is recursive, by having the property of self-similarity. It contains "copies" of itself.
So is it one or many? Both. It presents a set/subset relation.
By the same token, there is only one God, yet the one God is recursive, by the property of self-similarity. God is a Trinity.
5. A final problem with Tuggy's syllogism is that the NT does in fact call Jesus "God" or "Lord" (=Yahweh). For instance:
i) There's Jn 1:1. That's a paraphrase of Gen 1:1. That's a foundational statement regarding the identity of the one true God. That's how God introduced himself to readers in the history of canonical revelation. It's not "God" in a secondary sense. Rather, it uses "God" in the most fundamental sense of the word.
ii) Another example is Heb 1:10-12. According to the author of Hebrews, in Ps 102 the Father is addressing the Son as the preexistent, immutable, and everlasting Creator-God. It's a classic statement about Yahweh's unique identity.
If Tuggy's syllogism were sound, it would falsify NT Christology. So he's created a dilemma, not for Trinitarians, but for unitarians.
The ambiguity of "God" here is a feature, not a bug: http://trinities.org/blog/god-in-the-challenge/
ReplyDeleteYou've misunderstood the difference between "God" (singular referring term) and "god" (common noun). Thus, your argument in this post is simply not mine, and is not parallel to mine. See my "Trinity Challenge" argument in the post above. Do you agree that it is sound? (I believe you deny it because you deny its 2 - see below.)
Your second argument isn't parallel to anything I'm arguing. It's besides the point.
About your claim #3 - You are overlooking that steps 4-9 deal with the "deity" of Christ. I am focusing on the sense of "deity" or "divinity" which implies that the thing is a god. Compare: human. In the primary or basic sense of that, whatever "is human" just is a certain human being, e.g. Steve.
"Tuggy's syllogism depends on calling Jesus "God"."
You're not really getting the points of the argument. If 3 is true, it is highly misleading to say that "Jesus is God" because many will hear that as an identification of Jesus and God. And the point of 9 is that "the deity of Christ" is also misleading, as many will think that implies that Jesus is a god. But, he can't be - as there's only one god, and it's something or someone else - take your pick - the Father, or the Trinity.
"ambiguities concerning what it means for something to be "only one"."
Your example does nothing to show that "one" is ambiguous. Are you saying that we should doubt or deny that 6 is true?
"A final problem with Tuggy's syllogism is that the NT does in fact call Jesus "God" or "Lord" (=Yahweh)"
Not a problem. It's simply a mistake to think that anyone who can properly be called "God" or "Lord" is none other than Yahweh himself. I discuss this in the podcast, and have given many uncontroversial biblical examples. But you can find those yourself.
In terms of the argument, here you are just insisting that 3 is false. But 3 follows from 1 and 2. So, which of those do you deny? I think you must be just going against reason and denying 2, unlike just about all Christians trained in philosophy.
Are the NT authors *identifying* the one God and this man? You should say not. *You* think God is a Trinity, and that Jesus isn't. And that's just one of many differences: e.g. God has a Son, and Jesus doesn't. So the only way you can attribute the identification of Jesus and God to Paul or John (etc.) is to suppose that they're so stupid that they don't know: Things which differ are two (i.e. are not numerically identical) [premise 2 in my argument]. In other words, you're supposing that they think that one and the same thing can, at one time, be and not be some way. But that is *very* uncharitable. That's like supposing that they don't know that 3+3=6, or that "bigger than" is a transitive relation.
I would doubt that you fail to believe 2, as you seem to have adult-range intelligence, and would surly employ 2 in reasoning about non-theological matters. But I understand that you *say* you're denying 2 here - your theory demands it. This is a price you must pay in order to deny 3, given that you see that it's ridiculous for any Christian to deny 1.
What you need to see though is that it's ridiculous for any person, Christian or not, to deny 2. It's epistemic status is at least equal to 1.