Ehrman v Craig for Denis
abu_abdul...@yahoo.com
jwallack:
Ehrman then lists the Attributes of Quality evidence:
1) Contemporary
2) Quantity
3) Independence
4) Corroboration
5) Objectivity
He does a good job of explaining how Christian evidence has none of
these qualities:
1) Contemporary - The original Gospels are written 1 to 2 generations
after Jesus died and not by Eyewitnesses. Jesus and his witnesses would
have spoken Aramaic and the Gospels speak Greek. Subsequent Editors
make significant changes. I especially enjoyed Ehrman's commentary on
"Mark's" "The Disciples":
"One of Mark's overarching themes is that virtually no one during the
ministry of Jesus could understand who he was. His family didn't
understand. His townspeople didn't understand. The leaders of his own
people didn't understand. Not even the disciples understood in
Mark-especially not the disciples! For Mark, only outsiders have an
inkling of who Jesus was: the unnamed woman who anointed him, the
centurion at the cross. Who understands at the end? Not the family of
Jesus! Not the disciples!
It's a group of previously unknown women."
So not only are the Gospels not written by eyewitnesses but the
original Gospel makes a point that The Disciples, taken by Craig as the
witness, never understood Jesus!
2) Quantity - "Matthew" and "Luke" are dependent on "Mark" and "John"
may be partially dependent leaving Christianity with at most two
independent Gospels.
3) Independence - Again, "Matthew" and "Luke" are dependent on "Mark".
This also indicates a lack of independent witness available to authors
such as
"Matthew" and "Luke", a point which Ehrman should make.
4) Corroboration - Ehrman lists examples of significant disagreement
amongst the Gospels. There is exponentially more disagreement when
considering non-canonical Gospels, another point which Ehrman should
make.
5) Objectivity - The Gospels are all written by Evangelists who's soul
goal is to be an Advocate for Jesus.
Ehrman was limited by time here and therefore only covers it briefly
but a proper discussion should Measure the Distance between what would
constitute quality evidence and what the Christians claim to have.
Ehrman accurately points out that Craig is just a Theologian pretending
to be a historian:
"I do think, though, that what we've seen is that Bill is, at heart,
an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus
and that he's trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to
that end.
He can't critically evaluate these sources, and the one thing that
historians
have to do is be able to critically evaluate the sources that they base
their claims on."
Ehrman asks Craig if he is an Inerrantist and Craig refuses to answer
saying it is Irrelevant. Obviously it's relevant to Ehrman if he's
asking and Craig's refusal to answer just prove's Ehrman's above point.
In Summary, Craig's argument that the resurrection is Historical Fails
according to Ehrman based on the following:
1) Any Impossible claim is not Historical. No further discussion
required.
2) If you Assume that the Impossible is Possible you would need
uncommonly Good evidence. There is an Infinite Distance between
uncommonly Good evidence and the Christian evidence here.
3) Those who want to use the Christian Bible as their PriMary evidence
here like Craig, must, for starters, be Objective regarding the
Christian Bible as evidence. If, for Starters, you Assume that the
Christian Bible is Impossibly accurate than by Definition you are not
Objective about the Christian Bible.
1MAN4ALL
All this is not going to be useful for Denis. He has bought into
Craig's argument that if you suppose this and suppose that----no matter
how impossible, unsupported by original texts, or contradictory----then
the question is, can Christianity be presented in a way that it would
make sense? Now, obviously, if you start out with sufficient unprovable
assumptions, just about anything can make sense!
Denis Giron
abu_abdul...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=166245
Thank you Abu AbdurRahman for this link. Via your link, I found the
transcript (PDF):
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
I've been very busy lately, so I have not given the debate much thought
(I have not even tried to find out if it is yet possible to buy a
video/dvd). I'll try to read over the transcript as soon as possible.
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> All this is not going to be useful for Denis.
Actually, you're mistaken. I just started browsing it, and I have found
it very useful, not to mention very interesting.
> He has bought into Craig's argument that if you suppose this and
> suppose that----no matter how impossible, unsupported by original
> texts, or contradictory----then the question is, can Christianity be
> presented in a way that it would make sense?
I notice you didn't bother to give any examples, but I'm guessing
you're referring to my claim that Criag's version of the Trinity is
LOGICALLY COHERENT. I don't see what logical coherence has to do with
what an "original text" says. That being noted, in no way did I see the
original texts (I assume you mean the NT) contradicting the doctrine
(though perhaps the in what sense the Father is fount of Divinity needs
revision), therefore I also called the doctrine scripturally
consistent. As for impossibility, I saw no reason to assume anything I
raised or referenced in that discussion is impossible.
But of course, there is a difference between saying it is possible to
construct a logically coherent version of the Trinity on the one hand,
and saying Jesus actually rose from the dead on the other. Are you
assuming because I agree with Craig on some logical/philosophical
points, I therefore I agree with him on everything?
> Now, obviously, if you start out with sufficient unprovable
> assumptions, just about anything can make sense!
If you say so. Not sure how any of this is relevant however...
1MAN4ALL
Denis Giron wrote:
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > All this is not going to be useful for Denis.
>
> Actually, you're mistaken. I just started browsing it, and I have found
> it very useful, not to mention very interesting.
>
> > He has bought into Craig's argument that if you suppose this and
> > suppose that----no matter how impossible, unsupported by original
> > texts, or contradictory----then the question is, can Christianity be
> > presented in a way that it would make sense?
> I notice you didn't bother to give any examples, but I'm guessing
> you're referring to my claim that Criag's version of the Trinity is
> LOGICALLY COHERENT. I don't see what logical coherence has to do with
> what an "original text" says.
As I stated earlier, anything can be "logically coherent" (in the sense
you are taking the term i.e. language wise only), if sufficient number
of assumptions are made. So what's the big deal?
> That being noted, in no way did I see the
> original texts (I assume you mean the NT) contradicting the doctrine
> (though perhaps the in what sense the Father is fount of Divinity needs
> revision), therefore I also called the doctrine scripturally
> consistent.
If you keep revising the doctrine and keep making assumptions, which
may not be supported by NT, I guess you can reach a point where it
could begin to make some sense. But why go through all that trouble?
Why not accept another religion which is more consistent to begin with.
It's like buying a lemon; you can keep replacing parts and pay to add
fancy trim, but at some point it's just not worth it.
> As for impossibility, I saw no reason to assume anything I
> raised or referenced in that discussion is impossible.
> But of course, there is a difference between saying it is possible to
> construct a logically coherent version of the Trinity on the one hand,
> and saying Jesus actually rose from the dead on the other. Are you
> assuming because I agree with Craig on some logical/philosophical
> points, I therefore I agree with him on everything?
The kind of "logic" you were referring to dealt with language only and
not with substance, which amounts to nothing.
> > Now, obviously, if you start out with sufficient unprovable
> > assumptions, just about anything can make sense!
> If you say so. Not sure how any of this is relevant however...
How is it irrelevant?
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> > I notice you didn't bother to give any examples, but I'm guessing
> > you're referring to my claim that Criag's version of the Trinity is
> > LOGICALLY COHERENT. I don't see what logical coherence has to do with
> > what an "original text" says.
>
> As I stated earlier, anything can be "logically coherent" (in the sense
> you are taking the term i.e. language wise only), if sufficient number
> of assumptions are made. So what's the big deal?
This sort of comment basically exhibits a gross unfamiliarity with the
very concept of logical coherence. Strictly speaking, logical coherence
is an issue of language (that is not my invention), and in case you did
not know, it is only via language that we can convey these ideas over
the medium such as the internet. Logical coherence is almost identical
to logical consistency: a set of propositions which are logically
coherence do not contradict one another. Nothing more, nothing less. A
question you might want to ask yourself is what was the motivating deep
inside your gut that caused you to try so hard to dispute what should
have been an uncontroversial claim: it is possible to construct a
logically coherent version of the doctrine of the Trinity.
> > That being noted, in no way did I see the
> > original texts (I assume you mean the NT) contradicting the doctrine
> > (though perhaps the in what sense the Father is fount of Divinity needs
> > revision), therefore I also called the doctrine scripturally
> > consistent.
>
> If you keep revising the doctrine and keep making assumptions, which
> may not be supported by NT, I guess you can reach a point where it
> could begin to make some sense. But why go through all that trouble?
The Christian Bible, in its present form, *IMPLIES* (in the proper,
formal logical sense of "imply") a mutlipersonal conception of God.
That is the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some past versions
of the doctrine seem to have been logically inconsistent, thus it is
interesting when a Christian trained in formal logic comes up with a
logically coherent version. As for what is supported by the NT, the
notion of mutliple divine beings, triadic coordination, a single God,
and Jesus being God in a sense of predication are all supported by the
text of the Bible in its present form. Putting those disparate pieces
together provides us with a primitive multipersonal conception of God,
which can easily be tweaked into a version of the doctrine of the
Trinity.
> Why not accept another religion which is more consistent to begin with.
This depends on whom you're asking...
........................
(1) For example, some people claim there are contradictions in the
Qur'an. If you were to answer all the claims, you'd have to write many
lines of text. Why go through all that? Why not just abandon Islam and
chant Hare Krishna for the rest of your life? This rhetorical question
would help one understand why a Christian would not merely accept
another religion: he already has faith in the Bible, and the Bible
implies a doctrine similar to the Trinity. He is merely attempting to
come to grips fully with the text and its implications.
..........................
(2) For another example, consider me, a non-Muslim, and the issue of
the alleged contradictions in the Qur'an regarding inheritance. I had
long been aware of the fact that Jochen Katz (whom I believe was the
first on the net to bring this up) touched on this problem, but I never
really considered it deeply. However, in late 2002 I found an English
translation of al-Khurizimee's work on algebra, and was astonished to
find that he often acknowledged discrepancies, and had to introduce
certain rules for proper distribution. I touched on this in the second
part of the following article:
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranlogic.html
[scroll down to the part on inheritance]
I was pretty proud of the article, since I cited sources I don't think
anyone else on the net hat cited up to that point, and I felt secure in
my attack since al-Khurizimee himself made note of these discrepancies.
However, if you note the last link in the postscript, it takes you to
here:
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14
It is a response to Jochen Katz from 1997 that I was not originally
aware of when I first wrote the article (a Muslim on the Bismika
Allaahuma forum brought it to my intention). After taking a serious
considerationg of his understanding of the passages, which is wholly
different from al-Khurizimee's, I concludeded that the alleged
discrepancies no longer appeared, hence the reason I linked to it at
the end of my article. In short, I concluded that the Quranic laws of
inheritance are LOGICALLY CONSISTENT. But why should a non-Muslim go
through all the trouble of actually reading a defense of this position
and then agree with it? If a non-Muslim asked me this question,
wouldn't you consider it "stupid"? I hope so, and I consider your
question above equally "stupid" (no offense). How does admitting that a
collection of statements within a religion (or within the
interpretation of a religious text) is logically coherent amount to
accepting that religion rather than some other religion?
Do you think if a non-Muslim chastized me for claiming that the Quranic
laws of inheritance are logically consistent, his motivation for doing
so might be rooted in deeply entrenched "Islamophobia"? If so, how
should we interpret your analogous reaction to my claim that a
particular Christian interpretation of the Trinity was logically
consistent? Did you originally have a deeply seated hatred for
Christianity so strong that you couldn't even admit what an atheist
admitted from the jump: it is possible for there to be a logically
coherent version of the Trinity?
> It's like buying a lemon; you can keep replacing parts and pay to add
> fancy trim, but at some point it's just not worth it.
Kind of like how it is was not worth it for me to read Moiz Amjad's
piece (linked to above) and agree with him?
> > As for impossibility, I saw no reason to assume anything I
> > raised or referenced in that discussion is impossible.
>
> > But of course, there is a difference between saying it is possible to
> > construct a logically coherent version of the Trinity on the one hand,
> > and saying Jesus actually rose from the dead on the other. Are you
> > assuming because I agree with Craig on some logical/philosophical
> > points, I therefore I agree with him on everything?
>
> The kind of "logic" you were referring to dealt with language only and
> not with substance, which amounts to nothing.
What is this supposed to mean? Did you study formal logical in college?
In what sense did it deal with "substance" other than language? Do you
even know what you're talking about? Can you elaborate?
> > > Now, obviously, if you start out with sufficient unprovable
> > > assumptions, just about anything can make sense!
>
> > If you say so. Not sure how any of this is relevant however...
>
> How is it irrelevant?
You were trying to argue that my agreement with Craig on a
philosophical point meant I agreed with him on his historical claims
regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Care to explain the relevance of
this alleged antecedent to such a consequent?
1MAN4ALL
Denis Giron wrote:
> This sort of comment basically exhibits a gross unfamiliarity with the
> very concept of logical coherence. Strictly speaking, logical coherence
> is an issue of language (that is not my invention), and in case you did
> not know, it is only via language that we can convey these ideas over
> the medium such as the internet. Logical coherence is almost identical
> to logical consistency: a set of propositions which are logically
> coherence do not contradict one another. Nothing more, nothing less. A
> question you might want to ask yourself is what was the motivating deep
> inside your gut that caused you to try so hard to dispute what should
> have been an uncontroversial claim: it is possible to construct a
> logically coherent version of the doctrine of the Trinity.
What I keep trying to explain to you is that "logical coherence," or
whatever you may want to call it, is simply putting some sentences
together, that are based on assumptions, and if there is no
contradiction, you are ready to claim that it's "logically coherent."
This amounts to nothing but a having a concept that can be understood,
linguistically, not necessarily rationally. For example, you can
construct an argument which would suggest that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld
were both kidnapped by Zionist aliens called "Neocons" from planet
Jinsa, and were told to invade Iraq. All of this can be "logically
coherent." Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. My point is
that using the "logically coherent" argument to defend Christianity,
which is what you thought Craig was doing, is meaningless, as just
about 'any' concept or dogma can be "logically coherent."
> > > That being noted, in no way did I see the
> > > original texts (I assume you mean the NT) contradicting the doctrine
> > > (though perhaps the in what sense the Father is fount of Divinity needs
> > > revision), therefore I also called the doctrine scripturally
> > > consistent.
> > If you keep revising the doctrine and keep making assumptions, which
> > may not be supported by NT, I guess you can reach a point where it
> > could begin to make some sense. But why go through all that trouble?
> The Christian Bible, in its present form, *IMPLIES* (in the proper,
> formal logical sense of "imply") a mutlipersonal conception of God.
> That is the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity.
> Some past versions
> of the doctrine seem to have been logically inconsistent, thus it is
> interesting when a Christian trained in formal logic comes up with a
> logically coherent version. As for what is supported by the NT, the
> notion of mutliple divine beings, triadic coordination, a single God,
> and Jesus being God in a sense of predication are all supported by the
> text of the Bible in its present form. Putting those disparate pieces
> together provides us with a primitive multipersonal conception of God,
> which can easily be tweaked into a version of the doctrine of the
> Trinity.
That's circular reasoning because you are suggesting that, first, one
must accept the Bible, whether it makes sense or not, and if a
Christian comes up with a "logically coherent" version, then the two
together can lead to a 'sensible' concept of Trinitarian God. Logical
coherence or even consistency of the language is not the same as
conceptual coherence. I think you are acknowledging that "logical
coherence" is solely related to the structure of the language but when
it comes to the doctrine of Trinity, you are changing the meaning of
the term (taking advantage of words "logical" and "coherence,") and
misapplying it to the meaning to suggest that the concept of Trinity
could make sense.
> > Why not accept another religion which is more consistent to begin with.
>
> This depends on whom you're asking...
>
> ........................
> (1) For example, some people claim there are contradictions in the
> Qur'an. If you were to answer all the claims, you'd have to write many
> lines of text. Why go through all that? Why not just abandon Islam and
> chant Hare Krishna for the rest of your life? This rhetorical question
> would help one understand why a Christian would not merely accept
> another religion: he already has faith in the Bible, and the Bible
> implies a doctrine similar to the Trinity. He is merely attempting to
> come to grips fully with the text and its implications.
The difference is that with Quranic interpretation, you are going as
far as Hadith literature or various shades of meaning that are
supported by Arabic lexicon. With Christianity, interpretation is
dependent on the mood of the preacher on a given Sunday.
> (2) For another example, consider me, a non-Muslim, and the issue of
> the alleged contradictions in the Qur'an regarding inheritance. I had
> long been aware of the fact that Jochen Katz (whom I believe was the
> first on the net to bring this up) touched on this problem, but I never
> really considered it deeply. However, in late 2002 I found an English
> translation of al-Khurizimee's work on algebra, and was astonished to
> find that he often acknowledged discrepancies, and had to introduce
> certain rules for proper distribution. I touched on this in the second
> part of the following article:
>
> http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranlogic.html
> I was pretty proud of the article, since I cited sources I don't think
> anyone else on the net hat cited up to that point, and I felt secure in
> my attack since al-Khurizimee himself made note of these discrepancies.
> However, if you note the last link in the postscript, it takes you to
> here:
>
> http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14
I read that article couple of years ago, and I thought that Moiz had
done an excellent job of explaining the traditional Islamic point of
view on this subject.
> It is a response to Jochen Katz from 1997 that I was not originally
> aware of when I first wrote the article (a Muslim on the Bismika
> Allaahuma forum brought it to my intention). After taking a serious
> considerationg of his understanding of the passages, which is wholly
> different from al-Khurizimee's, I concludeded that the alleged
> discrepancies no longer appeared, hence the reason I linked to it at
> the end of my article. In short, I concluded that the Quranic laws of
> inheritance are LOGICALLY CONSISTENT. But why should a non-Muslim go
> through all the trouble of actually reading a defense of this position
> and then agree with it? If a non-Muslim asked me this question,
> wouldn't you consider it "stupid"? I hope so, and I consider your
> question above equally "stupid" (no offense). How does admitting that a
> collection of statements within a religion (or within the
> interpretation of a religious text) is logically coherent amount to
> accepting that religion rather than some other religion?
The difference is that if you read the Quranic text as is, there is no
contradiction. It's only when you start adding fractions incorrectly
[forgetting that the laws of inheritance are given in three separate
verses which one has to put together to get the complete picture] that
you can reach the wrong conclusion. In the case of Christianity, there
are direct contradictions. I can give you several examples of that.
> Do you think if a non-Muslim chastized me for claiming that the Quranic
> laws of inheritance are logically consistent, his motivation for doing
> so might be rooted in deeply entrenched "Islamophobia"? If so, how
> should we interpret your analogous reaction to my claim that a
> particular Christian interpretation of the Trinity was logically
> consistent? Did you originally have a deeply seated hatred for
> Christianity so strong that you couldn't even admit what an atheist
> admitted from the jump: it is possible for there to be a logically
> coherent version of the Trinity?
You should know by now that I don't really care what you or other
people think. If I have the time, I answer a person's post, giving my
own point of view. You won't find me sending too many
anti-Christianity posts, and I almost never post to Christian
newsgroups.
> > It's like buying a lemon; you can keep replacing parts and pay to add
> > fancy trim, but at some point it's just not worth it.
> Kind of like how it is was not worth it for me to read Moiz Amjad's
> piece (linked to above) and agree with him?
There is simply no comparison. Muslim beliefs can all be traced to
Quran and Sunnah. Fundamental [that's the key word here] Christian
belief such as Jesus dying for our sins is hard to trace in the four
Gospels.
> > > As for impossibility, I saw no reason to assume anything I
> > > raised or referenced in that discussion is impossible.
> > > But of course, there is a difference between saying it is possible to
> > > construct a logically coherent version of the Trinity on the one hand,
> > > and saying Jesus actually rose from the dead on the other. Are you
> > > assuming because I agree with Craig on some logical/philosophical
> > > points, I therefore I agree with him on everything?
> > The kind of "logic" you were referring to dealt with language only and
> > not with substance, which amounts to nothing.
> What is this supposed to mean? Did you study formal logical in college?
> In what sense did it deal with "substance" other than language? Do you
> even know what you're talking about? Can you elaborate?
I thought we had this discussion before. My point was/is that you are
misusing philosophy of language. For, example, if I say that "Hillary
had a child with the space alien," from a strictly linguistic point
of view that can be called "logically coherent," but we know that
the statement is nonsensical, 'referentially,' because we all know
that she had Chelsea with Bill Clinton. See also my comment below.
Now , I know that you will go crazy and start cutting and pasting from
our past discussions just to exhaust me with tiresome discussions. You
are so goddamn unoriginal and predictable, Denis. LOL.
> > > > Now, obviously, if you start out with sufficient unprovable
> > > > assumptions, just about anything can make sense!
> >
> > > If you say so. Not sure how any of this is relevant however...
> >
> > How is it irrelevant?
> You were trying to argue that my agreement with Craig on a
> philosophical point meant I agreed with him on his historical claims
> regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
Not at all. I was simply pointing out that "logically coherent" is
sort of an arbitrary term and you are confusing language structure---a
sentence can be coherent but false---with the actual meaning of the
sentence by misapplying the "logically coherent" label to the
meaning instead of to the sentence structure itself.
> Care to explain the relevance of
> this alleged antecedent to such a consequent?
See my comments above.
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> What I keep trying to explain to you is that "logical coherence," or
> whatever you may want to call it, is simply putting some sentences
> together, that are based on assumptions, and if there is no
> contradiction, you are ready to claim that it's "logically coherent."
Um, well, with all due respect, if logical consistency is defined based
on whether the collection of propositions contradict one another, would
you really be all that surprised if I then declared a collection of
propositions which did not contradict one another to be "logically
consistent"?
> This amounts to nothing but a having a concept that can be understood,
> linguistically, not necessarily rationally. For example, you can
> construct an argument which would suggest that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld
> were both kidnapped by Zionist aliens called "Neocons" from planet
> Jinsa, and were told to invade Iraq. All of this can be "logically
> coherent."
Indeed, that seems logically coherent to me.
> Whether it makes sense or not is another matter.
What does "makse sense" mean in this sentence?
> My point is
> that using the "logically coherent" argument to defend Christianity,
> which is what you thought Craig was doing, is meaningless, as just
> about 'any' concept or dogma can be "logically coherent."
No, not any concept can be logically coherent. "Married bachelor" is
not logically coherent. "X and not-X" is not logically coherent.
Anything which amounts to a contradiction is not logically coherent.
Regardless, what I said in my last post was that some versions of the
Trinity seemed to have been logically inconsistent, therefore I found
it interesting when a Christian presented a version that was logically
consistent. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that. The
question you need to ask yourself is why you felt motivated to try to
attack this uncontroversial position (which even an atheist, such as
me, can accept!).
> > > If you keep revising the doctrine and keep making assumptions, which
> > > may not be supported by NT, I guess you can reach a point where it
> > > could begin to make some sense. But why go through all that trouble?
>
> > The Christian Bible, in its present form, *IMPLIES* (in the proper,
> > formal logical sense of "imply") a mutlipersonal conception of God.
> > That is the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity.
> > Some past versions
> > of the doctrine seem to have been logically inconsistent, thus it is
> > interesting when a Christian trained in formal logic comes up with a
> > logically coherent version. As for what is supported by the NT, the
> > notion of mutliple divine beings, triadic coordination, a single God,
> > and Jesus being God in a sense of predication are all supported by the
> > text of the Bible in its present form. Putting those disparate pieces
> > together provides us with a primitive multipersonal conception of God,
> > which can easily be tweaked into a version of the doctrine of the
> > Trinity.
>
> That's circular reasoning because you are suggesting that, first, one
> must accept the Bible, whether it makes sense or not, and if a
> Christian comes up with a "logically coherent" version, then the two
> together can lead to a 'sensible' concept of Trinitarian God.
What do you mean by "accept"? What do you mean by "makese sense"? Does
a virgin birth "make sense"? Well, I certainly consider the concept to
be logically coherent, and I do accept that the Bible claims Jesus was
born of a virgin (even if I, personally, do not believe that claim
reflects reality).
> Logical coherence or even consistency of the language is not the same as
> conceptual coherence.
Sure it is! "Makes sense" is a vague term. It tells us nothing about
possibilia. Logical coherence brings us a great deal closer to
possibilia.
> I think you are acknowledging that "logical
> coherence" is solely related to the structure of the language but when
> it comes to the doctrine of Trinity, you are changing the meaning of
> the term (taking advantage of words "logical" and "coherence,") and
> misapplying it to the meaning to suggest that the concept of Trinity
> could make sense.
What does "make sense" mean in your usage?
I can tell you this, though: Craig's version of the Trinity "makes
sense" to me in that it is logically coherent.
> > (1) For example, some people claim there are contradictions in the
> > Qur'an. If you were to answer all the claims, you'd have to write many
> > lines of text. Why go through all that? Why not just abandon Islam and
> > chant Hare Krishna for the rest of your life? This rhetorical question
> > would help one understand why a Christian would not merely accept
> > another religion: he already has faith in the Bible, and the Bible
> > implies a doctrine similar to the Trinity. He is merely attempting to
> > come to grips fully with the text and its implications.
>
> The difference is that with Quranic interpretation, you are going as
> far as Hadith literature or various shades of meaning that are
> supported by Arabic lexicon. With Christianity, interpretation is
> dependent on the mood of the preacher on a given Sunday.
But why even bother defending your faith at all? Why bother? Why not
just give up! Why try to understand your own faith more?
By the way, all these questions were rhetorical...
I agree that there is no contradiction in the issue of inheritance.
Now, how does my admitting that much constitute me some how endorsing
Islam? Recall what the text above was referring to.
> It's only when you start adding fractions incorrectly
> [forgetting that the laws of inheritance are given in three separate
> verses which one has to put together to get the complete picture] that
> you can reach the wrong conclusion. In the case of Christianity, there
> are direct contradictions. I can give you several examples of that.
Can you show contradictions within the seven or twelve propositions
versions of the doctrine of the Trinity which I have presented in our
past threads?
> > Do you think if a non-Muslim chastized me for claiming that the Quranic
> > laws of inheritance are logically consistent, his motivation for doing
> > so might be rooted in deeply entrenched "Islamophobia"? If so, how
> > should we interpret your analogous reaction to my claim that a
> > particular Christian interpretation of the Trinity was logically
> > consistent? Did you originally have a deeply seated hatred for
> > Christianity so strong that you couldn't even admit what an atheist
> > admitted from the jump: it is possible for there to be a logically
> > coherent version of the Trinity?
>
> You should know by now that I don't really care what you or other
> people think. If I have the time, I answer a person's post, giving my
> own point of view. You won't find me sending too many
> anti-Christianity posts, and I almost never post to Christian
> newsgroups.
You didn't answer the question. So let's go through this step by step.
First: what would you think of a non-Muslim getting all worked up just
because I claimed the Qur'anic laws of inheritance are logically
consistent?
> > > It's like buying a lemon; you can keep replacing parts and pay to add
> > > fancy trim, but at some point it's just not worth it.
>
> > Kind of like how it is was not worth it for me to read Moiz Amjad's
> > piece (linked to above) and agree with him?
>
> There is simply no comparison.
Seems to be tremendous comparison. You basically don't want people to
expend any mental energy if it results in them agreeing with a very
non-controversial position held by a member of a faith you secretly
hate.
> Muslim beliefs can all be traced to
> Quran and Sunnah. Fundamental [that's the key word here] Christian
> belief such as Jesus dying for our sins is hard to trace in the four
> Gospels.
This is patently ridiculous. How is it that Muslim belief is allowed to
be traced to the entire Qur'an and "Sunnah", but Christian belief has
to be restricted to only a portion of the Bible?
> > > The kind of "logic" you were referring to dealt with language only and
> > > not with substance, which amounts to nothing.
>
> > What is this supposed to mean? Did you study formal logical in college?
> > In what sense did it deal with "substance" other than language? Do you
> > even know what you're talking about? Can you elaborate?
>
> I thought we had this discussion before. My point was/is that you are
> misusing philosophy of language. For, example, if I say that "Hillary
> had a child with the space alien," from a strictly linguistic point
> of view that can be called "logically coherent," but we know that
> the statement is nonsensical, 'referentially,' because we all know
> that she had Chelsea with Bill Clinton. See also my comment below.
Okay, so you didn't study logic in college. So, let me help you out.
You claim that the proposition "Hillary had a child with the space
alien" is nonsensical because she had Chelsea with Bill Clinton.
Assuming "a child" is a reference specifically to Chelsea, and assuming
Bill Clinton is not "the space alien," the statement is still not
nonsensical; rather it is false. Nonsensical propositions are devoid of
truth values, while false propositions do have truth values
(interestingly, I recall this comes up in Max Black's commentary on the
final, bizarre, proposition of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus").
> Now , I know that you will go crazy and start cutting and pasting from
> our past discussions just to exhaust me with tiresome discussions. You
> are so goddamn unoriginal and predictable, Denis. LOL.
Wow, you're pretty angry, eh?
> Not at all. I was simply pointing out that "logically coherent" is
> sort of an arbitrary term and you are confusing language structure---a
> sentence can be coherent but false---
I agree that a sentence can be coherent but false. In fact, I told you
over and over and over again that there was a difference between
logical coherence and factual correspondence. So you're (once again!)
preaching back at me something you could have realized I wrote to you
had you actually paid attention to my posts.
> with the actual meaning of the
> sentence by misapplying the "logically coherent" label to the
> meaning instead of to the sentence structure itself.
All the terms I used had meaning. The propositions could be true or
false, but they were not nonsensical. I even went out of my way to give
analogies explaining certain terms employed in those propositions.
All in all, the fact still remains that you made the ridiculous leap in
arguing that because I agree with Craig that it is possible to
construct a logically coherent version of the Trinity, I therefore
agree with Craig that Jesus rose from the dead. That was the absurd
implication of your original post.
1MAN4ALL
Denis Giron wrote:
> Um, well, with all due respect, if logical consistency is defined based
> on whether the collection of propositions contradict one another, would
> you really be all that surprised if I then declared a collection of
> propositions which did not contradict one another to be "logically
> consistent"?
> > This amounts to nothing but a having a concept that can be understood,
> > linguistically, not necessarily rationally. For example, you can
> > construct an argument which would suggest that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld
> > were both kidnapped by Zionist aliens called "Neocons" from planet
> > Jinsa, and were told to invade Iraq. All of this can be "logically
> > coherent."
> Indeed, that seems logically coherent to me.
I can answer all of your comments very easily (and may actually do so
later on), but let me just focus on this one very simple point:
If the nonsensical statement that I had made earlier about Cheney is
"logically coherent" and there was absolutely no value to it, why does
it impresses you that what Craig had stated was also "logically
coherent?"
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> > > This amounts to nothing but a having a concept that can be understood,
> > > linguistically, not necessarily rationally. For example, you can
> > > construct an argument which would suggest that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld
> > > were both kidnapped by Zionist aliens called "Neocons" from planet
> > > Jinsa, and were told to invade Iraq. All of this can be "logically
> > > coherent."
>
> > Indeed, that seems logically coherent to me.
>
> I can answer all of your comments very easily (and may actually do so
> later on),
Well, I know you consider this trinity discussion a waste of time, so
if you're actually going to return to it, perhaps you should offer your
comments on a post in which I was meeting a request you put directly to
me (to attempt to employ set theoretical notation to describe Craig's
doctrine).
> but let me just focus on this one very simple point:
>
> If the nonsensical statement that I had made earlier about Cheney is
> "logically coherent" and there was absolutely no value to it, why does
> it impresses you that what Craig had stated was also "logically
> coherent?"
Again, the doctrine of the Trinity, in many of its classical
variations, was logically incoherent, therefore, from within that
context, I was impressed when a brilliant Christian philosopher came up
with a version that is logically coherent. That his version is
logically coherent should not have been a controversial position at all
(it is a position that anyone, including an atheist(!), who looks at it
honestly can come to).
PERSIST
wrote:
>Again, the doctrine of the Trinity, in many of its classical
>variations, was logically incoherent, therefore, from within that
>context, I was impressed when a brilliant Christian philosopher came up
>with a version that is logically coherent. That his version is
>logically coherent should not have been a controversial position at all
>(it is a position that anyone, including an atheist(!), who looks at it
>honestly can come to).
I would say the Muslim criticism on the doctrine of Trinity is
Theologically Stupid. Just as Islamic doctrine of Shirk is
Theologically Stupid. But anyway can you please tell us or give ref to
this "logically coherent" version of the doctrine of Trinity.
Ammar
considered the word of god but the word of men.
Ammar
1MAN4ALL
Denis Giron wrote:
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > > > This amounts to nothing but a having a concept that can be understood,
> > > > linguistically, not necessarily rationally. For example, you can
> > > > construct an argument which would suggest that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld
> > > > were both kidnapped by Zionist aliens called "Neocons" from planet
> > > > Jinsa, and were told to invade Iraq. All of this can be "logically
> > > > coherent."
> >
> > > Indeed, that seems logically coherent to me.
> >
> > I can answer all of your comments very easily (and may actually do so
> Well, I know you consider this trinity discussion a waste of time, so
> if you're actually going to return to it, perhaps you should offer your
> comments on a post in which I was meeting a request you put directly to
> me (to attempt to employ set theoretical notation to describe Craig's
> doctrine).
Let me just focus on the question below, as I don't want us to be
distracted by past discussions from other threads.
> > but let me just focus on this one very simple point:
> > If the nonsensical statement that I had made earlier about Cheney is
> > "logically coherent" and there was absolutely no value to it, why does
> > it impresses you that what Craig had stated was also "logically
> > coherent?"
> Again, the doctrine of the Trinity, in many of its classical
> variations, was logically incoherent, therefore, from within that
> context, I was impressed when a brilliant Christian philosopher came up
> with a version that is logically coherent. That his version is
> logically coherent should not have been a controversial position at all
> (it is a position that anyone, including an atheist(!), who looks at it
> honestly can come to).
You didn't quite answer my question. So let me rephrase it, hoping you
would be bold enough to answer it honestly: If the "brilliant Christian
philosopher" made a statement which is at par with my assertion that
Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens and both statements from your
perspective are "logically coherent" then what was so brilliant about
it?
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> You didn't quite answer my question. So let me rephrase it, hoping you
> would be bold enough to answer it honestly: If the "brilliant Christian
> philosopher" made a statement which is at par with my assertion that
> Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens and both statements from your
> perspective are "logically coherent" then what was so brilliant about
> it?
I answered this already. But let me try this another way. A proposition
which is logically coherent, in a vacuum, is not necessarily impressive
as is. However, when a brilliant Christian philosopher does what I (and
I'm guessing other atheists) assumed could not be done - slightly tweak
a logically incoherent doctrine and make it logically coherent (and do
so via methods of the philosophy of language) - that is impressive. In
this sense, Craig's doctrine is not on par with your assertion about
Cheney. I also, analogously, have high regard for Moiz Amjad's ability
to offer a different perspective on an aforementioned Qur'anic issue so
as to make it logically consistent. Who cares if non-believers (such as
atheists) think a doctrine about a deity bothering to send down
inheritance laws is as likely as Cheney being kidnapped by aliens?
1MAN4ALL
You are simply repeating yourself and not answering my question. You
have made it quite clear that the 'only' criterion by which you think
that Craig has done an exception job is that he has made the Trinity
doctrine "logically coherent." And my question again is, so what,
especially when one considers that by your acknowledgement Cheney being
kidnapped by aliens from outer space is also "logically coherent." In
other words, before Craig, Trinity didn't even rise to the level of
something as nonsensical as Cheney being kidnapped by space aliens, and
now it does! If that's all a "brilliant Christian philosopher" can
achieve, that is hardly impressive.
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> You are simply repeating yourself and not answering my question.
Actually, I answered the question twice, hence the repetition. But here
we go again...
> You have made it quite clear that the 'only' criterion by which you think
> that Craig has done an exception job is that he has made the Trinity
> doctrine "logically coherent."
Just to be clear here, there are many other areas outside of the
subject of the doctrine of the Trinity in which I have found Craig
impressive (namely his clean demolitions of prominent Atheists and
Muslims in live debates).
> And my question again is, so what,
> especially when one considers that by your acknowledgement
> Cheney being kidnapped by aliens from outer space is also
>"logically coherent."
Again, putting forth a statement which is logically coherent is *NOT*,
by itself, impressive. There is nothing impressive in itself about
merely putting forth a logically consistent/coherent proposition or set
of propositions.
Where I have found the issue of Craig and the Trinity of interest, it
has to do with the fact that previous versions were not logically
coherent (thought this is not necessarily true of all previous
versions). Craig, by using basic notions from the philosophy of
language as well as employing classical Christian understandings (e.g.
Jesus being God in a sense of predication in John 1:1), Craig managed
to put forth a logically coherent version of the Trinity. I was
impressed by how elegant his explanation was, I was impressed that he
basically cleaned up the logic in a very popular and contentious
doctrine, and perhaps I also had an especial interest in the subject
since the seeming incoherence of the Trinity was one of the things that
caused me to lose faith in Christianity all those years ago.
> In other words, before Craig, Trinity didn't
> even rise to the level of
> something as nonsensical as Cheney being kidnapped by space
> aliens, and now it does! If that's all a "brilliant Christian philosopher"
> can achieve, that is hardly impressive.
First, I told you from the beginning that the position I was holding
was not exactly controversial. Now that we've come to agree with that,
maybe you should ask yourself why you became so apoplectic over the
issue. Does your hatred of Christianity run that deep?
Second, "Dick Cheny was kidnapped by space aliens" is not
"nonsensical". It makes perfect sense. Perhaps the adjectives you
should be using are "fantastic," "devoid of evidence," and even
"false"?
Third, let me again draw an analogy with Moiz Amjad's reconciliantion
of the inheritance laws in the Qur'an. I have declared them to be
logically coherent after seeing Moiz' exegesis. I have also said the
statement "Dick Cheney has been kidnapped by space aliens" is logically
coherent. If both are logically coherent, why did I bother even linking
to Moiz' explanation in the relevant article on my site? Becuase this
is still an issue worth discussion. The text *seemed* logically
incoherent (and some had even persuasively argued as much), but after
pondering Moiz' exegesis, it became clear that his decipherment put
forth an understanding which is logically coherent. That is, in my
opinion, impressive, as it took a certain amount of intelligence and
familiarity with the text (that even many Muslims lack) to perform such
a task. So too, Craig's version of the doctrine of the Trinity employed
a certain amount of intelligence and familiarity with the text that
many Christians lacked, and because the Trinity is an even more hotly
contested subject than Qur'anic inheritance laws, I was impressed by
his achievement!
1MAN4ALL
Denis Giron wrote:
> > You are simply repeating yourself and not answering my question.
> Actually, I answered the question twice, hence the repetition. But here
> we go again...
LOL. I am the one who should be saying, "there we go again," as you
keep repeating yourself.
> > You have made it quite clear that the 'only' criterion by which you think
> > that Craig has done an exception job is that he has made the Trinity
> > doctrine "logically coherent."
> Just to be clear here, there are many other areas outside of the
> subject of the doctrine of the Trinity in which I have found Craig
> impressive (namely his clean demolitions of prominent Atheists and
> Muslims in live debates).
Oh, so now you are establishing another criterion. In the past few
posts, you kept insisting that it was only "logical coherence." But I
think you are getting closer to admitting that you just liked Craig's
"style" even though there is no substance to his arguments.
> > And my question again is, so what,
> > especially when one considers that by your acknowledgement
> > Cheney being kidnapped by aliens from outer space is also
> >"logically coherent."
> Again, putting forth a statement which is logically coherent is *NOT*,
> by itself, impressive. There is nothing impressive in itself about
> merely putting forth a logically consistent/coherent proposition or set
> of propositions.
> Where I have found the issue of Craig and the Trinity of interest, it
> has to do with the fact that previous versions were not logically
> coherent (thought this is not necessarily true of all previous
> versions). Craig, by using basic notions from the philosophy of
> language as well as employing classical Christian understandings (e.g.
> Jesus being God in a sense of predication in John 1:1), Craig managed
> to put forth a logically coherent version of the Trinity.I was
> impressed by how elegant his explanation was, I was impressed that he
> basically cleaned up the logic in a very popular and contentious
> doctrine,
As I keep trying to explain, you are confusing linguistic coherence
[which is no big deal] with conceptual coherence--taking one for the
other---which is misleading you into believing that Trinity is somehow
"logical." Once again, I think you were impressed by Craig's eloquence
and style, but the argument in defense of Trinity has not budged an
inch forward.
> and perhaps I also had an especial interest in the subject
> since the seeming incoherence of the Trinity was one of the things that
> caused me to lose faith in Christianity all those years ago.
So, you do believe in Christianity?
> > In other words, before Craig, Trinity didn't
> > even rise to the level of
> > something as nonsensical as Cheney being kidnapped by space
> > aliens, and now it does! If that's all a "brilliant Christian philosopher"
> > can achieve, that is hardly impressive.
> First, I told you from the beginning that the position I was holding
> was not exactly controversial. Now that we've come to agree with that,
> maybe you should ask yourself why you became so apoplectic over the
> issue. Does your hatred of Christianity run that deep?
Not at all. I am just intrigued and amused by how easily you have been
fooled by Craig.
> Second, "Dick Cheny was kidnapped by space aliens" is not
> "nonsensical". It makes perfect sense.
Oh yeah? You should be working for the Globe or the National Enquirer
:-)
> Perhaps the adjectives you
> should be using are "fantastic," "devoid of evidence," and even
> "false"?
Conceptually incoherent.
> Third, let me again draw an analogy with Moiz Amjad's reconciliantion
> of the inheritance laws in the Qur'an. I have declared them to be
> logically coherent after seeing Moiz' exegesis. I have also said the
> statement "Dick Cheney has been kidnapped by space aliens" is logically
> coherent. If both are logically coherent, why did I bother even linking
> to Moiz' explanation in the relevant article on my site? Becuase this
> is still an issue worth discussion. The text *seemed* logically
> incoherent (and some had even persuasively argued as much), but after
> pondering Moiz' exegesis, it became clear that his decipherment put
> forth an understanding which is logically coherent. That is, in my
> opinion, impressive, as it took a certain amount of intelligence and
> familiarity with the text (that even many Muslims lack) to perform such
> a task. So too, Craig's version of the doctrine of the Trinity employed
> a certain amount of intelligence and familiarity with the text that
> many Christians lacked, and because the Trinity is an even more hotly
> contested subject than Qur'anic inheritance laws, I was impressed by
> his achievement!
I know you are trying to confuse the issue by dragging in Moiz into
this. The simple explanation is that as far as Quranic law of
inheritance is concerned, that is conceptually logical. At the most you
can say that one has to put some verses together and add an instruction
that one applies before the other to get the correct picture. That is
not the case with Trinity, and the more Biblical verses you take, the
more contradictory [conceptually incoherent] it all becomes. [That is
why you were limiting yourself to nine propositions, which were not
taken from the Bible]. As I stated earlier, you are not clear on the
difference between linguistic coherence and conceptual coherence, and
your comparison doesn't make any sense.
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> LOL. I am the one who should be saying, "there we go again," as you
> keep repeating yourself.
Indeed, I have repeated myself, because you seem unwilling to accept a
rather clear answer.
> > Just to be clear here, there are many other areas outside of the
> > subject of the doctrine of the Trinity in which I have found Craig
> > impressive (namely his clean demolitions of prominent Atheists and
> > Muslims in live debates).
>
> Oh, so now you are establishing another criterion. In the past few
> posts, you kept insisting that it was only "logical coherence." But I
> think you are getting closer to admitting that you just liked Craig's
> "style" even though there is no substance to his arguments.
No, what I was doing above was clarifying due to what I perceived to be
vagueness in your statement. I do not think this is the only place
where Craig has done an exceptional job. In other words, I wasn't sure
if "only" (in your sentence) signified the only thing I am impressed
about Craig's approach to specifically the doctrine of Trinity, or if
it signified the only thing I am impressed with about Craig as a whole.
It was a minor point.
> > Again, putting forth a statement which is logically coherent is *NOT*,
> > by itself, impressive. There is nothing impressive in itself about
> > merely putting forth a logically consistent/coherent proposition or set
> > of propositions.
>
> > Where I have found the issue of Craig and the Trinity of interest, it
> > has to do with the fact that previous versions were not logically
> > coherent (thought this is not necessarily true of all previous
> > versions). Craig, by using basic notions from the philosophy of
> > language as well as employing classical Christian understandings (e.g.
> > Jesus being God in a sense of predication in John 1:1), Craig managed
> > to put forth a logically coherent version of the Trinity.I was
> > impressed by how elegant his explanation was, I was impressed that he
> > basically cleaned up the logic in a very popular and contentious
> > doctrine,
>
> As I keep trying to explain, you are confusing linguistic coherence
> [which is no big deal] with conceptual coherence
What I am dealing with is LOGICAL coherence. That which is not
logically coherent is that which is, first and foremost, a
contradiction. It can also include that which is properly nonsensical
(i.e. that which is devoid of sense, and thus devoid of truth value).
So, for example, a two-headed cat is not properly nonsensical (even if
to you or I the existence of such a thing seems fantastic, silly, or
highly unlikely). "Two-headed cat" is not nonsensical because it makes
sense - it refers to something we can conceptualize (namely a feline
which possess two heads).
> --taking one for the other---which is misleading you into believing
> that Trinity is somehow "logical."
I can clearly define what I mean by logically coherent and/or logically
consistent. The ways in which I have used such terms have not changed
over the course of these many threads. And I can assure you the version
of the Trinity put forth by Craig fits that definition.
> Once again, I think you were impressed by Craig's eloquence
> and style, but the argument in defense of Trinity has not budged an
> inch forward.
Indeed I am impressed with Craig's eloquence and style, but that does
not change the fact that his version of the Trinity fits the proper
definition of "logically coherent" and/or "logically consistent".
> > and perhaps I also had an especial interest in the subject
> > since the seeming incoherence of the Trinity was one of the things that
> > caused me to lose faith in Christianity all those years ago.
>
> So, you do believe in Christianity?
No, but you see how it would be of interest to me nonetheless: Craig
took away one of my original objections. In fact, he basically
destroyed all my original objections to Christianity, so I had to go
look forward to new ones. In fact, I am a bit ashamed of this, but
after seeing Craig's arguments, and being left with none of my original
arguments against Christianity, I didn't come with new reasons to
disbelieve in Christianity and then, therefore, disbelieved. On the
contrary, I first made the decision to continue in my disbelief, and
then went looking for arguments to support that position. Luckily I
found them, but I am ashamed that I took such a biased route.
> > First, I told you from the beginning that the position I was holding
> > was not exactly controversial. Now that we've come to agree with that,
> > maybe you should ask yourself why you became so apoplectic over the
> > issue. Does your hatred of Christianity run that deep?
>
> Not at all. I am just intrigued and amused by how easily you have been
> fooled by Craig.
In what sense have I been fooled? I understood the concept of "logical
coherence" well before I ever encountered Craig's version of the
Trinity, and my understanding of that concept has not changed since. I
merely came into contact with a version of the doctrine which falls
under that understanding.
> > Second, "Dick Cheny was kidnapped by space aliens" is not
> > "nonsensical". It makes perfect sense.
>
> Oh yeah? You should be working for the Globe or the National Enquirer
All sarcasm aside, the problem here is your own poor use of language.
As I noted above, something which has conceptual import cannot be
nonsensical, because it actually posseses "sense" - it has truth value.
We know what the proposition "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by space
aliens" means - it refers to the current vice president being abducted
by beings from another planet and/or galaxy. We can understand what it
means, and we can asign a truth value to it (e.g. I personally believe
the statement "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens" is false).
> > Perhaps the adjectives you
> > should be using are "fantastic," "devoid of evidence," and even
> > "false"?
>
> Conceptually incoherent.
But the concept is not incoherent. On the contrary, the concept is
perfectly coherent. Dick Cheney, being abducted, by beings who are from
another planet. I understand the concept just fine. It makes perfect
sense. And because we can understand it, we can assign a truth value to
it (a truly/properly nonsensical statement would be devoid of meaning,
like the statement "makimaki jugujugu pinopino").
> > Third, let me again draw an analogy with Moiz Amjad's reconciliantion
> > of the inheritance laws in the Qur'an. I have declared them to be
> > logically coherent after seeing Moiz' exegesis. I have also said the
> > statement "Dick Cheney has been kidnapped by space aliens" is logically
> > coherent. If both are logically coherent, why did I bother even linking
> > to Moiz' explanation in the relevant article on my site? Becuase this
> > is still an issue worth discussion. The text *seemed* logically
> > incoherent (and some had even persuasively argued as much), but after
> > pondering Moiz' exegesis, it became clear that his decipherment put
> > forth an understanding which is logically coherent. That is, in my
> > opinion, impressive, as it took a certain amount of intelligence and
> > familiarity with the text (that even many Muslims lack) to perform such
> > a task. So too, Craig's version of the doctrine of the Trinity employed
> > a certain amount of intelligence and familiarity with the text that
> > many Christians lacked, and because the Trinity is an even more hotly
> > contested subject than Qur'anic inheritance laws, I was impressed by
> > his achievement!
>
> I know you are trying to confuse the issue by dragging in Moiz into
> this.
No, I am using it as an analogy:
(1) Craig version of the Trinity is logically coherent.
(2) The statement "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by aliens" is logically
coherent.
(3) Moiz Amjad's understanding of the Quranic inheritance laws is
logically coherent.
It moves in the opposite direction of your attempt to poison the well
by appealing to the emotions that some might feel regarding the
statement about Dick Cheney and aliens. Mind you, however, that, as I
alluded to previously, some atheists would find the notion of a Deity
being concerned with inheritance laws to be "nonsensical" (in the
emotional/colloquial sense), but alas, personal "gut feelings" are not
relevant to a discussion on logical coherence.
> The simple explanation is that as far as Quranic law of
> inheritance is concerned, that is conceptually logical.
Making up our own terms? Care to define "conceptually logical"? Give an
example of "conceptually illogical" as well please...
> At the most you can say that one has to put some verses
> together and add an instruction that one applies before the
> other to get the correct picture.
Okay. I would just say that Moiz Amjad's understanding of the relevant
passages provides us with a look at Quranic inheritance laws which is
logically coherent.
> That is not the case with Trinity, and the more Biblical verses you
> take, the more contradictory [conceptually incoherent] it all becomes.
Not at all. For example, the Bible is explicit that Jesus is God, that
the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, that Jesus is the
Creator, that the Father is Creator, that the Holy Spirit is Creator,
that these three distinct beings can be grouped under a single name,
and that despite the fact that each distinct being is God, there are
not three gods, but one God. Furthermore, the Bible also provides us
with the fact that Jesus is God in a sense of predication. All of that
fits very nicely together with Craig's version of the Trinity.
> [That is why you were limiting yourself to nine propositions, which were not
> taken from the Bible].
Okay, let's derive doctrine directly from the Bible.
(1) Jesus is God in some sense (John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9,
Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1).
(2) Jesus is God precisely in a sense of predication (John 1:1).
(3) Jesus created everything (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).
(4) Jesus is equal with God (John 5:18, Philippians 2:6).
(5) Only God is our Lord and Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Hosea 13:4), Jesus
is our Lord and Savior (2 Peter 1:1), therefore it is not surprising
that Jesus is our Lord and God (John 20:28) and our God and Savior (2
Peter 1:1).
(6) Jesus is also the Son of God (Mark 1:1, Mark 14:61-62, John 5:18).
(7) The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4).
(8) The Holy Spirit was present at creation (Genesis 1:2), and is
Creator (Job 33:4).
(9) The Father is God (John 8:41, Philippians 1:2).
(10) The Father is Creator (Isaiah 64:8).
(11) We are ordered to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), i.e. one name refers
to all three.
(12) Yet despite all that, there are not three gods, but rather there
is only one God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, 1 Kings 8:60, 1
Chronicles 17:20, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:5, Isaiah 45:14,
Isaiah 45:21-22, Isaiah 46:9, Hosea 13:4, Joel 2:27, Romans 3:29-30, 1
Corinthians 8:4).
Therefore from these twelve propositions it is clear that while the
word "trinity" might not appear in the text of the Bible, these
passages nonetheless collectively imply a doctrine very similar to the
Trinity: a doctrine where there are three distinct beings, each of
which is God, but these are not three gods but rather one God, which is
referred to with a single name (and at least one of the persons is God
in a sense of predication, which allows for the leap that all three
are, or at least that two of the three are).
> As I stated earlier, you are not clear on the
> difference between linguistic coherence and conceptual coherence,
> and your comparison doesn't make any sense.
This bit on "linguistic coherence" and "conceptual coherence" exists in
your own imagination. Logical coherence is directly related to
language, but that means concepts conveyed through the medium of
language (i.e. it is both "linguistic" and "conceptual"). Something is
consistent if it is not contradictory, and something is coherent if it
is consistent and/or in possession of "sense" and "coherence" (i.e. it
refers to something which can be conceptualized, or something which can
have truth value).
1MAN4ALL
> Indeed, I have repeated myself, because you seem unwilling to accept a
> rather clear answer.
Your "clear answer" might have been "logically coherent" but it didn't
answer my simple question! :-)
> > > Just to be clear here, there are many other areas outside of the
> > > subject of the doctrine of the Trinity in which I have found Craig
> > > impressive (namely his clean demolitions of prominent Atheists and
> > > Muslims in live debates).
> > Oh, so now you are establishing another criterion. In the past few
> > posts, you kept insisting that it was only "logical coherence." But I
> > think you are getting closer to admitting that you just liked Craig's
> > "style" even though there is no substance to his arguments.
> No, what I was doing above was clarifying due to what I perceived to be
> vagueness in your statement. I do not think this is the only place
> where Craig has done an exceptional job. In other words, I wasn't sure
> if "only" (in your sentence) signified the only thing I am impressed
> about Craig's approach to specifically the doctrine of Trinity, or if
> it signified the only thing I am impressed with about Craig as a whole.
> It was a minor point.
Let me quote what you had stated earlier in this thread:
"Regardless, what I said in my last post was that some versions of the
Trinity seemed to have been logically inconsistent, therefore I found
it interesting when a Christian presented a version that was logically
consistent. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that. The
question you need to ask yourself is why you felt motivated to try to
attack this uncontroversial position (which even an atheist, such as
me, can accept!)". June 27, 2006
"...when a brilliant Christian philosopher does what I (and I'm
guessing other atheists) assumed could not be done - slightly tweak a
logically incoherent doctrine and make it logically coherent (and do so
via methods of the philosophy of language) - that is impressive". June
28, 2006
So from these statements it is obvious that "logically coherent" was
the part that you impressed you the most, if not the only part. Then
when I started pointing out that "logical coherence" (the way you
understand it) is no big deal, you changed your tune and started
suggesting that Craig's eloquence also played a role. That is not
wrong, but I wouldn't call it an impressive defense of Trinity that is
based on substantive argument.
If I understand you correctly, a "logical coherent" is one which is:
(a). Not self-contradictory, and
(b) That which is properly nonsensical.
I understand the part about something being self-contradictory and thus
"incoherent." Your second definition that it has to be "properly
nonsensical" is rather subjective. So, for you "X and not-X" is NOT
"logically coherent" but Jesus being "Fully God" and praying to himself
[Jesus the God and not God (while on the Cross)] is not. What you can
"conceptualize" after a few drinks may not be what others and I are
capable of.
> > --taking one for the other---which is misleading you into believing
> > that Trinity is somehow "logical."
> I can clearly define what I mean by logically coherent and/or logically
> consistent. The ways in which I have used such terms have not changed
> over the course of these many threads. And I can assure you the version
> of the Trinity put forth by Craig fits that definition.
I have not even begun to question your definitions; I am simply stating
that just because you have some propositions, which by your own
definition are not self-contradictory and are "properly not
nonsensical" (whatever that means), it doesn't mean that Trinity is
somehow "rational", which leads me to ask, do you consider everything
that is "logically coherent" to be "rational?"
> > Once again, I think you were impressed by Craig's eloquence
> > and style, but the argument in defense of Trinity has not budged an
> > inch forward.
> Indeed I am impressed with Craig's eloquence and style, but that does
> not change the fact that his version of the Trinity fits the proper
> definition of "logically coherent" and/or "logically consistent".
Now you are making the mistake that I thought you were making but you
kept denying it. You are misusing the word "logical," which when used
with "coherence" should only mean linguistic "clarity"---nothing more,
nothing less. In fact, if you drop the word "logical" altogether,
"coherence" is sufficient. But what you are doing is to take the word
"logical" from its linguistic context and applying it to the concept
which is an amalgamation of many ideas that are not always consistent
with each other.
You adding "and/or" doesn't help your argument because you were not
even consistent in your "seven propositions," since you introduced the
word "godhead" instead of God to get rid of the obvious confusion. In
other words, it was simply a semantic trick.
> > > and perhaps I also had an especial interest in the subject
> > > since the seeming incoherence of the Trinity was one of the things that
> > > caused me to lose faith in Christianity all those years ago.
> > So, you do believe in Christianity?
> No, but you see how it would be of interest to me nonetheless: Craig
> took away one of my original objections. In fact, he basically
> destroyed all my original objections to Christianity, so I had to go
> look forward to new ones. In fact, I am a bit ashamed of this, but
> after seeing Craig's arguments, and being left with none of my original
> arguments against Christianity, I didn't come with new reasons to
> disbelieve in Christianity and then, therefore, disbelieved. On the
> contrary, I first made the decision to continue in my disbelief, and
> then went looking for arguments to support that position. Luckily I
> found them, but I am ashamed that I took such a biased route.
LOL. Denis, you are such a character. First, you came up with seven
propositions which you completely isolated from the rest of
Christianity, and after satisfying yourself that those seven statements
are not self-contradictory and are not nonsensical (in other words,
"logically coherent"), you are now claiming that "all" your "original
objections to Christianity" have been "destroyed."
Why not take seven propositions from Islam, keep them "logically
coherent" and drop all your objections to Islam?
> > > First, I told you from the beginning that the position I was holding
> > > was not exactly controversial. Now that we've come to agree with that,
> > > maybe you should ask yourself why you became so apoplectic over the
> > > issue. Does your hatred of Christianity run that deep?
> > Not at all. I am just intrigued and amused by how easily you have been
> > fooled by Craig.
> In what sense have I been fooled? I understood the concept of "logical
> coherence" well before I ever encountered Craig's version of the
> Trinity, and my understanding of that concept has not changed since. I
> merely came into contact with a version of the doctrine which falls
> under that understanding.
It appears that you took a class in philosophy of language and when you
came across Craig's argument, which are based on semantic tricks such
as calling God "father" or "godhead" to get rid of obvious
contradictions and employing philosophy, you were easily fooled.
Early on you claimed that a "married bachelor" is not "logically
coherent". But if I say to you, "Married is bachelor by way of
predication," will you say that is "logically coherent?"
> > > Second, "Dick Cheny was kidnapped by space aliens" is not
> > > "nonsensical". It makes perfect sense.
> > Oh yeah? You should be working for the Globe or the National Enquirer
> All sarcasm aside, the problem here is your own poor use of language.
> As I noted above, something which has conceptual import cannot be
> nonsensical, because it actually posseses "sense" - it has truth value.
> We know what the proposition "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by space
> aliens" means - it refers to the current vice president being abducted
> by beings from another planet and/or galaxy. We can understand what it
> means, and we can asign a truth value to it (e.g. I personally believe
> the statement "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens" is false).
You just simplified what I understood to be your definition of "logical
coherence," which is a statement that is "coherent," i.e. statement
that can be easily understood. Where I disagree is your transference of
the word "logical" to the concept which may be embodied in that
sentence, as meaning is dependent on other factors or word definitions.
I hope you understand that now, as I am getting tired of explaining
that.
> > > Perhaps the adjectives you
> > > should be using are "fantastic," "devoid of evidence," and even
> > > "false"?
> > Conceptually incoherent.
> But the concept is not incoherent. On the contrary, the concept is
> perfectly coherent. Dick Cheney, being abducted, by beings who are from
> another planet. I understand the concept just fine. It makes perfect
> sense. And because we can understand it, we can assign a truth value to
> it (a truly/properly nonsensical statement would be devoid of meaning,
> like the statement "makimaki jugujugu pinopino").
I agree with you that the concept is coherent. I understand it, you
understand it, even Cheny would understand what I am talking about.
What I am questioning is the use of the word "logical," especially when
you keep making the mistake of applying that term to the concept and
thereby dropping "all" your "objections" to Christianity.
It is more of a comparison than an analogy, and as I stated earlier I
simply don't see the parallel between the two examples. See my comments
below.
> > The simple explanation is that as far as Quranic law of
> > inheritance is concerned, that is conceptually logical.
> Making up our own terms? Care to define "conceptually logical"? Give an
> example of "conceptually illogical" as well please...
Where does it say that only you or your favorite philosophers can
invent terms? What I mean by "conceptually logical" is overall internal
consistency. Assuming that Jesus is fully God and fully man, fully God
prays to fully God, or not knowing how a fully God can become fully man
while remaining fully God, is conceptually illogical because by
definition, God is separate from man.
> > At the most you can say that one has to put some verses
> > together and add an instruction that one applies before the
> > other to get the correct picture.
> Okay. I would just say that Moiz Amjad's understanding of the relevant
> passages provides us with a look at Quranic inheritance laws which is
> logically coherent.
> > That is not the case with Trinity, and the more Biblical verses you
> > take, the more contradictory [conceptually incoherent] it all becomes.
> Not at all. For example, the Bible is explicit that Jesus is God, that
> the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, that Jesus is the
> Creator, that the Father is Creator, that the Holy Spirit is Creator,
> that these three distinct beings can be grouped under a single name,
> and that despite the fact that each distinct being is God, there are
> not three gods, but one God. Furthermore, the Bible also provides us
> with the fact that Jesus is God in a sense of predication. All of that
> fits very nicely together with Craig's version of the Trinity.
You used the word "explicit" which I question because it is not in the
examples that you have given. What I had stated was that the more
verses you take into consideration, the more confusing God-concept
becomes. I can find many more verses which would contradict what your
PARAPHRASING, not actual quotes, appear to be suggesting.
Furthermore, your examples come from the Gospel of John (full of
Gnostic symbolism that can hardly be taken literally, just as Sufi
expression "becoming one with God" is not taken seriously by Muslims),
and hardly any from the other three Gospels. That is significant,
especially when you consider the historical fact that the "Son of God"
was an old Hebrew term that has been used for several other people in
the Bible. My point is that the Four Gospels and the Old Testament,
taken together, have to be the basis for judging whether Trinity is
supported by the Bible or not. Other books were simply letters or
impressions of Church fathers.
I any case, I don't want to get into the discussion of whether the
Bible is consistent or not. I simply would like to focus on your
infatuation with Craig.
See my statement above. I can go through each one of those references
and explain why they don't support the concept of Trinity but I am
trying to avoid that debate [it won't get us anywhere] and instead
focusing on your impression of Craig's argument and why you think it
makes sense.
> > As I stated earlier, you are not clear on the
> > difference between linguistic coherence and conceptual coherence,
> > and your comparison doesn't make any sense.
> This bit on "linguistic coherence" and "conceptual coherence" exists in
> your own imagination. Logical coherence is directly related to
> language, but that means concepts conveyed through the medium of
> language (i.e. it is both "linguistic" and "conceptual"). Something is
> consistent if it is not contradictory, and something is coherent if it
> is consistent and/or in possession of "sense" and "coherence" (i.e. it
> refers to something which can be conceptualized, or something which can
> have truth value).
What you are ignoring is the fact that a "concept" is not necessarily
one single statement; it is usually made up of many different ideas,
and if those ideas, taken from the same page or book are not consistent
with each other, it's conceptually incoherent. In other words, single
statements can all be coherent but when put together they may not be.
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> Your "clear answer" might have been "logically coherent" but it didn't
> answer my simple question! :-)
Your question was originally along the lines of as follows: Craig's
version is logically coherent, but then so too is the proposition
"Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens," so what is so impressive about
that? And I answered the question several times (slightly tweaking the
answer as we went along). Basically, being logically coherent is not,
in a vacuum, impressive in and of itself. I was impressed with Craig's
version of the Trinity because he used a few simple changes (which were
from the philosophy of language, yet in keeping with ancient/classical
understandings of certain passages) and rescued a very contentious
issue from logical incoherence.
> > No, what I was doing above was clarifying due to what I perceived to be
> > vagueness in your statement. I do not think this is the only place
> > where Craig has done an exceptional job. In other words, I wasn't sure
> > if "only" (in your sentence) signified the only thing I am impressed
> > about Craig's approach to specifically the doctrine of Trinity, or if
> > it signified the only thing I am impressed with about Craig as a whole.
> > It was a minor point.
>
> Let me quote what you had stated earlier in this thread:
>
> "Regardless, what I said in my last post was that some versions of the
> Trinity seemed to have been logically inconsistent, therefore I found
> it interesting when a Christian presented a version that was logically
> consistent. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that. The
> question you need to ask yourself is why you felt motivated to try to
> attack this uncontroversial position (which even an atheist, such as
> me, can accept!)". June 27, 2006
>
> "...when a brilliant Christian philosopher does what I (and I'm
> guessing other atheists) assumed could not be done - slightly tweak a
> logically incoherent doctrine and make it logically coherent (and do so
> via methods of the philosophy of language) - that is impressive". June
> 28, 2006
>
> So from these statements it is obvious that "logically coherent" was
> the part that you impressed you the most, if not the only part.
Right. But my clarification was motivated by the following from you:
**{{{the 'only' criterion by which you think that Craig has done an
exception job is that he has made the Trinity doctrine "logically
coherent."}}}**
It is true that within the scope of the subject of the Trinity, the
main thing I found impressive was that Craig rescued the doctrine from
logical coherence (though I also, to a lesser degree, liked the light
he shed on certain passages). However the wording above, I felt, might
give the wrong impression that this is the only thing I am impressed
with about Craig as a whole. So, within the scope of discussion
specifically on the Trinity, the above is *roughly* accurate. However,
if, on the rare chance that the above was referring to my thoughts on
Craig overall, then it would have been inaccurate. That was the
motivation behind the clarification.
> Then when I started pointing out that "logical coherence" (the way you
> understand it) is no big deal, you changed your tune and started
> suggesting that Craig's eloquence also played a role.
Not exactly. You accused me of being impressed with Craig's eloquence,
and I merely confessed that I am, but I noted that my being impressed
by Craig's eloquence is not relevant to whether the doctrine is
logically coherent. As for it not being a big deal, I have been saying
for quite some time that this is not a controversial position. The fact
that an atheist/agnostic (i.e. me) can hold this position should have
clued you in that it is not a terribly major victory for Christianity.
> That is not wrong, but I wouldn't call it an impressive defense of
> Trinity that is based on substantive argument.
I think Craig employed what might be called substantive argument for
the doctrine of the Trinity at least being logically coherent.
Remember, a long-standing charge (among several) against the doctrine
of the Trinity is that it is logically coherent. Craig's version at
least escapes that.
> > What I am dealing with is LOGICAL coherence. That which is not
> > logically coherent is that which is, first and foremost, a
> > contradiction. It can also include that which is properly nonsensical
> > (i.e. that which is devoid of sense, and thus devoid of truth value).
> > So, for example, a two-headed cat is not properly nonsensical (even if
> > to you or I the existence of such a thing seems fantastic, silly, or
> > highly unlikely). "Two-headed cat" is not nonsensical because it makes
> > sense - it refers to something we can conceptualize (namely a feline
> > which possess two heads).
>
> If I understand you correctly, a "logical coherent" is one which is:
> (a). Not self-contradictory, and
> (b) That which is properly nonsensical.
Does (b) contain a typo? I have mostly employed "logically coherent" in
a way that is nearly identical to "logically consistent". However, in
the above, I have also included the caveat that a logically coherent
statement or doctrine not be properly nonsensical (i.e. it should at
least have truth value!).
> I understand the part about something being self-contradictory and thus
> "incoherent." Your second definition that it has to be "properly
> nonsensical" is rather subjective.
Subjective? If I actually did require that the doctrine be "properly
nonsensical" (i.e. so devoid of sense and meaning that a truth value
cannot be assigned to it), that would be utterly ridiculous! Luckily,
that was not any requirement of mine.
> So, for you "X and not-X" is NOT "logically coherent" but Jesus being
> "Fully God" and praying to himself [Jesus the God and not God (while
> on the Cross)] is not. What you can "conceptualize" after a few drinks
> may not be what others and I are capable of.
First, I think "X and not-X" is clearly logically inconsistent, thus if
logical coherence rests on logical consistency, then that proposition
would be logically incoherent.
Second, Jesus "praying to himself"? You are still thinking of modalism,
and thus still don't understand the doctrine. Jesus is *NOT* identical
to the Godhead, and *NOT* identical to the other persons. Therefore,
when Jesus, in his humanity, prayed, in no way was he praying to
himself.
Third, "Fully God" in a sense of predication, as was noted previously,
would be understood as "truly divine". It does not mean he is a deity
or identical to the Godhead (just to be clear).
So, regarding the above, the notion is of a Godhead of which Jesus is a
proper part, and Jesus is himself in possession of divine qualities (he
is God in a sense of predication). He also possesses a human nature.
None of this strikes me as nonsensical in the least. I, an
atheist/agnostic, understand it quite clearly.
> > I can clearly define what I mean by logically coherent and/or logically
> > consistent. The ways in which I have used such terms have not changed
> > over the course of these many threads. And I can assure you the version
> > of the Trinity put forth by Craig fits that definition.
>
> I have not even begun to question your definitions; I am simply stating
> that just because you have some propositions, which by your own
> definition are not self-contradictory and are "properly not
> nonsensical" (whatever that means), it doesn't mean that Trinity is
> somehow "rational", which leads me to ask, do you consider everything
> that is "logically coherent" to be "rational?"
First, let me define properly nonsensical. People use "nonsense" in a
colloquial or emotional sense. But within philosophy, something is
nonsense if it is so meaningless that it is devoid of truth value. So,
for example, an atheist might say "Muslims believe there is some
infinitely intelligent being who is concerned with the behavior of a
few hairless chimps on some tiny blue rock in some backwater galaxy -
that's nonsense!" However, the person who would say such is employing
"nonsense" in an emotional or colloquial sense. The reality is that the
doctrine alluded to is not properly nonsensical. It is, on the
contrary, understandable, and we can asign truth values to it.
As for "rational," remember that in past discussion rational was
intimately connected with consistency (and, as I noted, had a meaning
very close to the proper/formal philosophical meaning of "valid"). So
to call a doctrine "rationally objectionable" would mean we can refute
it without making recourse to the actual state of affairs (e.g. an
empirical approach); rather we could simply show how it is
self-contradictory. Certain versions of the Trinity suffered from being
logically inconsistent, and thus they were rationally objectionable.
Craig's version, on the other hand, is rationally unobjectionable.
While it may be true or false, we cannot declare it to be false on its
logical structre alone (the way we might with other versions of the
Trinity).
> > Indeed I am impressed with Craig's eloquence and style, but that does
> > not change the fact that his version of the Trinity fits the proper
> > definition of "logically coherent" and/or "logically consistent".
>
> Now you are making the mistake that I thought you were making but you
> kept denying it. You are misusing the word "logical," which when used
> with "coherence" should only mean linguistic "clarity"---nothing more,
> nothing less. In fact, if you drop the word "logical" altogether,
> "coherence" is sufficient. But what you are doing is to take the word
> "logical" from its linguistic context and applying it to the concept
> which is an amalgamation of many ideas that are not always consistent
> with each other.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. A doctrine can be boiled down
to a collection of propositions, and that collection of propositions
can be logically coherent or logically incoherent. This is not some
concept I pulled out of thin air. It is a realm of philosophy and
logic.
> You adding "and/or" doesn't help your argument because you were not
> even consistent in your "seven propositions," since you introduced the
> word "godhead" instead of God to get rid of the obvious confusion. In
> other words, it was simply a semantic trick.
Just because you think it is a "semantic trick" does not make it
inconsistent. It was a clarification (and for your information, this is
not my introduction, nor is it Craig's - the words "God" "Divine" and
"Godhead" have been part of Christian terminology since before any of
us were born). The Godhead refers to the Deity (Divinity in toto).
Beings who are God in a sense of predication, as per this doctrine, are
divine beings who are proper parts of that Godhead, but these
beings/Persons are not individual gods.
> > > So, you do believe in Christianity?
>
> > No, but you see how it would be of interest to me nonetheless: Craig
> > took away one of my original objections. In fact, he basically
> > destroyed all my original objections to Christianity, so I had to go
> > look forward to new ones. In fact, I am a bit ashamed of this, but
> > after seeing Craig's arguments, and being left with none of my original
> > arguments against Christianity, I didn't come with new reasons to
> > disbelieve in Christianity and then, therefore, disbelieved. On the
> > contrary, I first made the decision to continue in my disbelief, and
> > then went looking for arguments to support that position. Luckily I
> > found them, but I am ashamed that I took such a biased route.
>
> LOL. Denis, you are such a character. First, you came up with seven
> propositions which you completely isolated from the rest of
> Christianity, and after satisfying yourself that those seven statements
> are not self-contradictory and are not nonsensical (in other words,
> "logically coherent"), you are now claiming that "all" your "original
> objections to Christianity" have been "destroyed."
No, you misunderstood me. Originally I noted that Craig's rescuing of
the Trinity from logical coherence took away one of my original
objections to Christianity. Then I went on to confess (though perhaps
my language was not clear enough) that, aside from that, Craig also
took away all my other original objections (i.e. with regard to other
aspects of critiquing Christianity, aside from the Trinity), and as a
result I had to come up with new objections. Are you opposed to
honesty?
> Why not take seven propositions from Islam, keep them "logically
> coherent" and drop all your objections to Islam?
I have objections to Christianity and I have objections to Islam. A
particular doctrine being logically coherent within either faith does
not, by itself, change that fact.
> > In what sense have I been fooled? I understood the concept of "logical
> > coherence" well before I ever encountered Craig's version of the
> > Trinity, and my understanding of that concept has not changed since. I
> > merely came into contact with a version of the doctrine which falls
> > under that understanding.
>
> It appears that you took a class in philosophy of language and when you
> came across Craig's argument, which are based on semantic tricks such
> as calling God "father" or "godhead" to get rid of obvious
> contradictions and employing philosophy, you were easily fooled.
You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, Craig is not
merely employing "semantic" tricks, nor do I recall him identifying the
Father with the Godhead (in fact, if you recall, I even noted that one
potential problem with his doctrine might be how easily one can come to
the conclusion that the Bible equates the Father with the Godhead,
while Craig takes the opposite position).
That being said, indeed it seems Craig speaks the language of the
Philosopher, and if you don't speak that language, you're going to have
difficulty understanding him. I know that had I not studied the
philosophy of language (even at the most basic level), I would not have
caught basic notions like predication vis a vis identity (i.e. how to
proper interpret the copula in a sentence).
> Early on you claimed that a "married bachelor" is not "logically
> coherent". But if I say to you, "Married is bachelor by way of
> predication," will you say that is "logically coherent?"
"Married bachelor by way of predication" does not mean anything new.
This shows that you still don't understand the concept. "Married X" is
a predication. It means X bares the predicate of being married.
"Bachelor" is a noun which bares the tacit predicate of being not
married. Thus a married bachelor is one who is simultaneously married
and not married. In other words, the concept is logically inconsistent,
and that is why I declared it logically incoherent.
> > All sarcasm aside, the problem here is your own poor use of language.
> > As I noted above, something which has conceptual import cannot be
> > nonsensical, because it actually posseses "sense" - it has truth value.
> > We know what the proposition "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by space
> > aliens" means - it refers to the current vice president being abducted
> > by beings from another planet and/or galaxy. We can understand what it
> > means, and we can asign a truth value to it (e.g. I personally believe
> > the statement "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens" is false).
>
> You just simplified what I understood to be your definition of "logical
> coherence," which is a statement that is "coherent," i.e. statement
> that can be easily understood.
But it also has to be consistent. For example, "married bachelor" is
"coherent" in the sense you are using the word (cf. the explanation I
gave above), and we can asign a truth value to it (i.e. it is false, as
all contradictions are necessarily false), but it is logically
incoherent nonetheless. So logically coherent is not the same as the
way you employ "coherent".
> Where I disagree is your transference of the word "logical" to
> the concept which may be embodied in that sentence, as meaning
> is dependent on other factors or word definitions.
> I hope you understand that now, as I am getting tired of explaining
> that.
As I have just explained to you, what "logically coherent" means in
philosophical discussion is not identical to what you seem to mean by
"coherent" above. Furthermore, I did not invent this concept of
"logical coherence". It actually comes up when one studies philosophy.
> > But the concept is not incoherent. On the contrary, the concept is
> > perfectly coherent. Dick Cheney, being abducted, by beings who are from
> > another planet. I understand the concept just fine. It makes perfect
> > sense. And because we can understand it, we can assign a truth value to
> > it (a truly/properly nonsensical statement would be devoid of meaning,
> > like the statement "makimaki jugujugu pinopino").
>
> I agree with you that the concept is coherent.
So then if the concept is coherent, why did you call it "conceptually
incoherent"?
> I understand it, you understand it, even Cheny would understand what
> I am talking about What I am questioning is the use of the word "logical,"
> especially when you keep making the mistake of applying that term
> to the concept and thereby dropping "all" your "objections" to Christianity.
The discussion of whether a proposition (or collection of propositions)
is logically coherent is not my own invention. It is a very basic part
of philosophy.
As for me "dropping all objections," that was a misunderstanding on
your part (though quite possibly poor language on my part is to blame).
I did not drop all objections because the doctrine of the Trinity is
logically coherent under Craig's view. Craig's version caused me to
drop by objection to the Trinity, and, aside from that, other arguments
from Craig caused me to drop all my other original objections to
Christianity.
> > No, I am using it as an analogy:
> >
> > (1) Craig version of the Trinity is logically coherent.
> >
> > (2) The statement "Dick Cheney was kidnapped by aliens" is logically
> > coherent.
> >
> > (3) Moiz Amjad's understanding of the Quranic inheritance laws is
> > logically coherent.
> >
> > It moves in the opposite direction of your attempt to poison the well
> > by appealing to the emotions that some might feel regarding the
> > statement about Dick Cheney and aliens. Mind you, however, that, as I
> > alluded to previously, some atheists would find the notion of a Deity
> > being concerned with inheritance laws to be "nonsensical" (in the
> > emotional/colloquial sense), but alas, personal "gut feelings" are not
> > relevant to a discussion on logical coherence.
>
> It is more of a comparison than an analogy, and as I stated earlier I
> simply don't see the parallel between the two examples. See my comments
> below.
I brought it in because of your point that while Craig's version of the
doctrine is logically coherent, so too is the proposition "Dick Cheney
was kidnapped by space aliens". That sort of point poisoned the well in
that it gave the impression of the absurd. So I pulled in a similar
situation from Islam (I had an objection to a specific doctrine within
Islam, on the grounds that the doctrine was logically incoherent, and a
brilliant Muslim offered an alternative interpretation, and my
objection evaporated). So too, the analogy is pertinent because just as
my declaring that Qur'anic inheritance laws are logically coherent is
not an endorsement of (or conversion to) Islam, so too, my declaring
that the Trinity is logically coherent is not an endorsement of (or
conversion to) Christianity. It is, as I have said several times, a
non-controversial position which anyone who is honest can take.
> > > The simple explanation is that as far as Quranic law of
> > > inheritance is concerned, that is conceptually logical.
>
> > Making up our own terms? Care to define "conceptually logical"? Give an
> > example of "conceptually illogical" as well please...
>
> Where does it say that only you or your favorite philosophers can
> invent terms?
No where.
> What I mean by "conceptually logical" is overall internal
> consistency. Assuming that Jesus is fully God and fully man, fully God
> prays to fully God, or not knowing how a fully God can become fully man
> while remaining fully God, is conceptually illogical because by
> definition, God is separate from man.
This sentence by you is barely coherent. Let me see if I can distill an
argument from it. Are you saying that the following propositions...
(1) Jesus is fully God (i.e. in possession of a truly divine nature)
(2) Jesus is fully man (i.e. in possession of a truly human nature)
(3) Jesus, in his humanity, prayed to God (not himself)
(4) Jesus was simultaneously fully God and fully man
...are "conceptually illogical" because "God is separate from man"?
That is a difficult concept to wrap my head around (as I'm not sure I
understand what you're saying), but I *think* you are dealing with
logical consistency here, e.g. Jesus cannot be both God and man because
of a tacit premise which you endorse that it is impossible for a being
to be both God and man. If that is your argument, I would agree that
the following propositions...
(1) Jesus is a being who is both God and man.
(2) It is impossible for any being to be both God and man.
...are logically inconsistent. Of course, I don't endorse the second
proposition (I don't see on what grounds I should), and it is certainly
not part of Craig's doctrine. If the second proposition is true, then
problems of logical inconsistency arise in Craig's doctrine, but I
don't see on what grounds to believe it is true (i.e. you may take it
to be axiomatic, by I certainly do not).
> > Not at all. For example, the Bible is explicit that Jesus is God, that
> > the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, that Jesus is the
> > Creator, that the Father is Creator, that the Holy Spirit is Creator,
> > that these three distinct beings can be grouped under a single name,
> > and that despite the fact that each distinct being is God, there are
> > not three gods, but one God. Furthermore, the Bible also provides us
> > with the fact that Jesus is God in a sense of predication. All of that
> > fits very nicely together with Craig's version of the Trinity.
>
> You used the word "explicit" which I question because it is not in the
> examples that you have given.
Really? Which of the above is not explicitly found in the Bible in your
opinion?
> What I had stated was that the more
> verses you take into consideration, the more confusing
> God-concept becomes.
Indeed, the Bible has many seemingly disparate thoughts about the
nature of God and or divinity, but that is the point of the doctrine of
the Trinity: to pull all those statements together and put forth a
coherent theology which takes into account all those claims.
> I can find many more verses which would contradict what your
> PARAPHRASING, not actual quotes, appear to be suggesting.
If you say so, but talk is cheap. You tried previously, and you only
showed your inability to grasp the doctrine being put forth. If you
wish to have another go at it, that is entirely your choice (and being
that this is a favorite subject of mine, I would be happy to oblige if
you did decide to go down that route).
> Furthermore, your examples come from the Gospel of John (full of
> Gnostic symbolism that can hardly be taken literally, just as Sufi
> expression "becoming one with God" is not taken seriously by Muslims),
> and hardly any from the other three Gospels.
So what? I did not say this doctrine is derived from the synoptic
gospels alone. I said it is derived from the Bible in its present form.
For example if I were to claim the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth was
Biblical, I obviously wouldn't be referencing Mark or the sayings of
Jesus for prooftexts. That wouldn't change the fact that the virgin
birth is Biblical.
> That is significant, especially when you consider the historical fact
> that the "Son of God" was an old Hebrew term that has been used
> for several other people in the Bible.
I have no idea how this is relevant (and I wonder if you know how this
is possibly relevant).
> My point is that the Four Gospels and the Old Testament,
> taken together, have to be the basis for judging whether Trinity is
> supported by the Bible or not. Other books were simply letters or
> impressions of Church fathers.
Those "other books" which were "simply letters" are part of the Bible
(I assume you mean Colossians, Hebrews, and other texts I cited). If we
are claiming a doctrine is supported by the Bible, we look in the
Bible. Let me set an analogy. The doctrine that Moses turned a stick
into a snake is Biblical. I do not believe it is true, and it is never
mentioned in the synoptic gospels, but it is nonetheless Biblical in
that it appears in the Bible in its present form. The same goes for the
various references to the divinity of Jesus I alluded to.
> I any case, I don't want to get into the discussion of whether the
> Bible is consistent or not.
As I said, that is entirely your decision.
> I simply would like to focus on your
> infatuation with Craig.
I'm more than willing to oblige you in such an investigation, as, since
I am a fan of Craig, I like to discuss Craig.
Okay. Note, however, that I did not claim any of those verses by
themself constitute an explicity and full Trinitarian formula. My point
was that all those passages together form a doctrine like that of the
Trinity (multiple distinct beings who are God, yet there are not
multiple gods, but rather only one God).
> > This bit on "linguistic coherence" and "conceptual coherence" exists in
> > your own imagination. Logical coherence is directly related to
> > language, but that means concepts conveyed through the medium of
> > language (i.e. it is both "linguistic" and "conceptual"). Something is
> > consistent if it is not contradictory, and something is coherent if it
> > is consistent and/or in possession of "sense" and "coherence" (i.e. it
> > refers to something which can be conceptualized, or something which can
> > have truth value).
>
> What you are ignoring is the fact that a "concept" is not necessarily
> one single statement; it is usually made up of many different ideas,
> and if those ideas, taken from the same page or book are not consistent
> with each other, it's conceptually incoherent. In other words, single
> statements can all be coherent but when put together they may not be.
Okay, I agree completely that, in theory, it is possible to collect
coherent propositions, and yet the collection itself is logically
incoherent. But the 12 propositions collected above, in actuality, do
not form a logically incoherent set as far as I can see.
1MAN4ALL
> > Your "clear answer" might have been "logically coherent" but it didn't
> > answer my simple question! :-)
> Your question was originally along the lines of as follows: Craig's
> version is logically coherent, but then so too is the proposition
> "Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens," so what is so impressive about
> that? And I answered the question several times (slightly tweaking the
> answer as we went along). Basically, being logically coherent is not,
> in a vacuum, impressive in and of itself. I was impressed with Craig's
> version of the Trinity because he used a few simple changes (which were
> from the philosophy of language, yet in keeping with ancient/classical
> understandings of certain passages) and rescued a very contentious
Specifically, how was the Trinity concept incoherent before Craig made
it "logically coherent?" Are you suggesting that just because he is
using three words for God (God, Godhead and Father), assuming that they
are not identical, and having a postulate that Jesus and the Holy Ghost
are God that he was able to get rid of obvious contradictions which
were making Trinity "illogically incoherent?"
That is totally false. I made that statement on July 5 but your
statements, quoted above, were made on June 27 and June 28,
respectively!
> It is true that within the scope of the subject of the Trinity, the
> main thing I found impressive was that Craig rescued the doctrine from
> logical coherence (though I also, to a lesser degree, liked the light
> he shed on certain passages). However the wording above, I felt, might
> give the wrong impression that this is the only thing I am impressed
> with about Craig as a whole. So, within the scope of discussion
> specifically on the Trinity, the above is *roughly* accurate. However,
> if, on the rare chance that the above was referring to my thoughts on
> Craig overall, then it would have been inaccurate. That was the
> motivation behind the clarification.
The only reason that I am having this lengthy discussion with you is
not to 'defeat' you in a debate; I am just trying to figure out why an
atheist like you would become a fan of a Christian Evangelist and find
his arguments in defense of Trinity impressive. That's all. Early on,
you led me to believe that it was simply "logical coherence" but after
I started pressing you for more details, you admitted that it was not
the only factor. Now, you are saying that you "liked the light he shed
on certain passages." What are these passages, and what exactly did
Craig say that has not been said by other Christians?
> > Then when I started pointing out that "logical coherence" (the way you
> > understand it) is no big deal, you changed your tune and started
> > suggesting that Craig's eloquence also played a role.
> Not exactly. You accused me of being impressed with Craig's eloquence,
> and I merely confessed that I am, but I noted that my being impressed
> by Craig's eloquence is not relevant to whether the doctrine is
> logically coherent. As for it not being a big deal, I have been saying
> for quite some time that this is not a controversial position. The fact
> that an atheist/agnostic (i.e. me) can hold this position should have
> clued you in that it is not a terribly major victory for Christianity.
I never suggested that your approval of Craig's methodology is victory
for Christianity. I am only interested in finding out what it takes to
impress an atheist/agnostic like yourself so that he or she would have
a favorable view of a religious doctrine, which to me is not even
rational.
> > That is not wrong, but I wouldn't call it an impressive defense of
> > Trinity that is based on substantive argument.
> I think Craig employed what might be called substantive argument for
> the doctrine of the Trinity at least being logically coherent.
> Remember, a long-standing charge (among several) against the doctrine
> of the Trinity is that it is logically coherent. Craig's version at
> least escapes that.
I think you mean, "not logically coherent." As I stated above, if
he is escaping that charge by using three different words for God (God,
Godhead and Father) to avoid incoherence and asserting that God is Son
of God and God is Holy Ghost by predication. That is hardly
substantive.
> > > What I am dealing with is LOGICAL coherence. That which is not
> > > logically coherent is that which is, first and foremost, a
> > > contradiction. It can also include that which is properly nonsensical
> > > (i.e. that which is devoid of sense, and thus devoid of truth value).
> > > So, for example, a two-headed cat is not properly nonsensical (even if
> > > to you or I the existence of such a thing seems fantastic, silly, or
> > > highly unlikely). "Two-headed cat" is not nonsensical because it makes
> > > sense - it refers to something we can conceptualize (namely a feline
> > > which possess two heads).
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, a "logical coherent" is one which is:
> > (a). Not self-contradictory, and
> > (b) That which is properly nonsensical.
> Does (b) contain a typo? I have mostly employed "logically coherent" in
> a way that is nearly identical to "logically consistent".
What does "logically" mean in your term "logically consistent,"
and consistent with what?
> However, in
> the above, I have also included the caveat that a logically coherent
> statement or doctrine not be properly nonsensical (i.e. it should at
> least have truth value!).
Well, any statement that is in the form of "X 'is' Y" can have
a truth value. So what's the big deal here? Even before Craig,
Christianity claimed that Jesus is God. How is it "logically
incoherent?"
> > I understand the part about something being self-contradictory and thus
> > "incoherent." Your second definition that it has to be "properly
> > nonsensical" is rather subjective.
> Subjective? If I actually did require that the doctrine be "properly
> nonsensical" (i.e. so devoid of sense and meaning that a truth value
> cannot be assigned to it), that would be utterly ridiculous! Luckily,
> that was not any requirement of mine.
Okay.
> > So, for you "X and not-X" is NOT "logically coherent" but Jesus being
> > "Fully God" and praying to himself [Jesus the God and not God (while
> > on the Cross)] is not. What you can "conceptualize" after a few drinks
> > may not be what others and I are capable of.
> First, I think "X and not-X" is clearly logically inconsistent, thus if
> logical coherence rests on logical consistency, then that proposition
> would be logically incoherent.
I don't why you are using "if" because you have already stated
that, "I have mostly employed 'logically coherent' in a way that
is nearly identical to 'logically consistent'."
> Second, Jesus "praying to himself"? You are still thinking of modalism,
> and thus still don't understand the doctrine. Jesus is *NOT* identical
> to the Godhead, and *NOT* identical to the other persons. Therefore,
> when Jesus, in his humanity, prayed, in no way was he praying to
> himself.
Forget Godhead. Is Jesus God or not? Or, is Jesus a part-time God?
> Third, "Fully God" in a sense of predication, as was noted previously,
> would be understood as "truly divine". It does not mean he is a deity
> or identical to the Godhead (just to be clear).
I think the confusion is being created by your use of different words
for God (Godhead, Father, Deity, the Divine etc). Let's just use ONLY
one word: God. Period.
Just to confirm, when you use the word "predication," do you mean
assigning attribute or do you mean having a truth-value (having a part
in a proposition that can be affirmed or denied)? I thought I had
understood you, but now I am not so sure anymore.
If you are assigning the 'attribute' of "Fully God" to Jesus,
then in essence isn't he God? Or perhaps you are thinking that
ascribing an attribute to something doesn't make it so. For example,
if I say "Bush is a jackass." It doesn't mean that Bush in
reality is a jackass; we are simply assuming that he has the quality of
a jackass. Similarly, when somebody says, "Jesus is God," it does
not mean that Jesus is in reality God; he just has some qualities that
are reminiscent of Divine attributes. If that's what you have in
mind, then this interpretation neither jibes with traditional
Christianity, the Fully God concept, nor with several passages of the
Bible that you have taken quite literally.
If you are using "predication" in the sense of having a
proposition, in which the predicate can be affirmed or denied, and thus
it's "logically coherent" from your point of view, then saying,
"Jesus is God," is simply an assertion, and what Craig has done is
not remarkable.
> So, regarding the above, the notion is of a Godhead of which Jesus is a
> proper part, and Jesus is himself in possession of divine qualities (he
> is God in a sense of predication). He also possesses a human nature.
> None of this strikes me as nonsensical in the least. I, an
> atheist/agnostic, understand it quite clearly.
Let me break it down for you. You/Craig is assuming that "Godhead"
is like an umbrella under which stand the 'real' God [the Father],
Jesus [the Son], and the Holy Ghost. Both Jesus and the Holy Ghost have
some attributes of the Father, and therefore can be called "God,"
but are not identical to the Father. When Jesus steps outside of the
umbrella, he is "fully human" and no longer under "Godhead." He
starts acting foolishly and doesn't know when the season for figs is,
for instance. He is put on the cross and he starts bemoaning the fact
that God the Father has forsaken him. God was probably saying,
"Jesus, you get back in here!" And as he was leaving, Jesus looked
at the crowd and said something like, "I'll send you my brother,
Comforter, he's the Holy Ghost."
The problem with this picture, besides me caricaturization, is that if
you fold the umbrella, you'll end up with two or three distinct
beings, and you will be able to say that Jesus acts like God, in some
instances, but he is not God, which is contrary to the traditional
Christian point of view.
See my comments above regarding using different names for God.
> > > Indeed I am impressed with Craig's eloquence and style, but that does
> > > not change the fact that his version of the Trinity fits the proper
> > > definition of "logically coherent" and/or "logically consistent".
> >
> > Now you are making the mistake that I thought you were making but you
> > kept denying it. You are misusing the word "logical," which when used
> > with "coherence" should only mean linguistic "clarity"---nothing more,
> > nothing less. In fact, if you drop the word "logical" altogether,
> > "coherence" is sufficient. But what you are doing is to take the word
> > "logical" from its linguistic context and applying it to the concept
> > which is an amalgamation of many ideas that are not always consistent
> > with each other.
> I have no idea what you're trying to say. A doctrine can be boiled down
> to a collection of propositions, and that collection of propositions
> can be logically coherent or logically incoherent. This is not some
> concept I pulled out of thin air. It is a realm of philosophy and
> logic.
It all depends on consistency of language, word meaning, and how
conceptually connected propositions are. Creating multiple names for
the same person, changing the meaning by ascribing new attributes, and
taking each proposition in isolation can create the impression of
coherency but when you look below the surface, the pieces of the puzzle
don't fit together because you keep trying to push several pieces at
the same spot.
> > You adding "and/or" doesn't help your argument because you were not
> > even consistent in your "seven propositions," since you introduced the
> > word "godhead" instead of God to get rid of the obvious confusion. In
> > other words, it was simply a semantic trick.
> Just because you think it is a "semantic trick" does not make it
> inconsistent. It was a clarification (and for your information, this is
> not my introduction, nor is it Craig's - the words "God" "Divine" and
> "Godhead" have been part of Christian terminology since before any of
> us were born).
So what? We have 99 attributes of God, and all those attributes refer
to the same being. Just because God has been called by different names
in the Bible, it doesn't mean that there is a distinct personality
attached to each name.
> The Godhead refers to the Deity (Divinity in toto).
> Beings who are God in a sense of predication, as per this doctrine, are
> divine beings who are proper parts of that Godhead, but these
> beings/Persons are not individual gods.
Do Christians worship God or Godhead? Jesus, as man, worshipped God or
Godhead?
> > LOL. Denis, you are such a character. First, you came up with seven
> > propositions which you completely isolated from the rest of
> > Christianity, and after satisfying yourself that those seven statements
> > are not self-contradictory and are not nonsensical (in other words,
> > "logically coherent"), you are now claiming that "all" your "original
> > objections to Christianity" have been "destroyed."
> No, you misunderstood me. Originally I noted that Craig's rescuing of
> the Trinity from logical coherence took away one of my original
> objections to Christianity. Then I went on to confess (though perhaps
> my language was not clear enough) that, aside from that, Craig also
> took away all my other original objections (i.e. with regard to other
> aspects of critiquing Christianity, aside from the Trinity), and as a
> result I had to come up with new objections. Are you opposed to
> honesty?
You are saying that I misunderstood, but actually you are confirming
what I think you had said. Anyway, why you felt the need to come up
with new objections? That sounds like a grudge rather than an honest
disagreement.
> > Why not take seven propositions from Islam, keep them "logically
> > coherent" and drop all your objections to Islam?
> I have objections to Christianity and I have objections to Islam. A
> particular doctrine being logically coherent within either faith does
> not, by itself, change that fact.
What exactly is your biggest objection to Islam. Just one reason will
be sufficient. [You may want to start another thread, as this thread
has gone on for far too long already].
> You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, Craig is not
> merely employing "semantic" tricks, nor do I recall him identifying the
> Father with the Godhead (in fact, if you recall, I even noted that one
> potential problem with his doctrine might be how easily one can come to
> the conclusion that the Bible equates the Father with the Godhead,
> while Craig takes the opposite position).
I guess what you are saying is that Craig's view contradicts the
Bible, or the obvious interpretation of it, and perhaps he is the one
who doesn't know what he's talking about. What you are calling
"potential problem" is the card that brings down the house of (7)
cards that you had constructed!
> That being said, indeed it seems Craig speaks the language of the
> Philosopher, and if you don't speak that language, you're going to have
> difficulty understanding him. I know that had I not studied the
> philosophy of language (even at the most basic level), I would not have
> caught basic notions like predication vis a vis identity (i.e. how to
> proper interpret the copula in a sentence).
As I have stated many times already, I have studied philosophy
[actually, most of it long time ago] but not the "philosophy of
language," which you have come to assume as the only philosophy that
counts. Anyway, I am not even getting into philosophy; I am simply
trying to understand what impressed you the most about Craig's ideas.
Now, you are claiming that he speaks "the language of
philosophers." So, perhaps, you were simply impressed by his diction.
> > Early on you claimed that a "married bachelor" is not "logically
> > coherent". But if I say to you, "Married is bachelor by way of
> > predication," will you say that is "logically coherent?"
> "Married bachelor by way of predication" does not mean anything new.
> This shows that you still don't understand the concept. "Married X" is
> a predication. It means X bares the predicate of being married.
> "Bachelor" is a noun which bares the tacit predicate of being not
> married. Thus a married bachelor is one who is simultaneously married
> and not married. In other words, the concept is logically inconsistent,
> and that is why I declared it logically incoherent.
But that depends on the meaning of "bachelor" isn't it? You
correctly stated that it means, "not married." I can just as easily
argue that "Man" means "Not God," and since Jesus was a man, He
cannot be God at the same time, just as a married man cannot be a
bachelor at the same time. If Jesus can act like God and be called God,
why can't a married man like me act like a bachelor and be called a
"bachelor." ;-)
> > You just simplified what I understood to be your definition of "logical
> > coherence," which is a statement that is "coherent," i.e. statement
> > that can be easily understood.
> But it also has to be consistent. For example, "married bachelor" is
> "coherent" in the sense you are using the word (cf. the explanation I
> gave above), and we can asign a truth value to it (i.e. it is false, as
> all contradictions are necessarily false), but it is logically
> incoherent nonetheless. So logically coherent is not the same as the
> way you employ "coherent".
It seems to me that the only reason you are calling it "logically
incoherent nonetheless" is because "married" and "bachelor"
are opposites. As I stated above, I consider "Man (Jesus), the God"
as also contradictory and inconsistent and therefore "logically
incoherent."
> > Where I disagree is your transference of the word "logical" to
> > the concept which may be embodied in that sentence, as meaning
> > is dependent on other factors or word definitions.
> > I hope you understand that now, as I am getting tired of explaining
> > that.
> As I have just explained to you, what "logically coherent" means in
> philosophical discussion is not identical to what you seem to mean by
> "coherent" above. Furthermore, I did not invent this concept of
> "logical coherence". It actually comes up when one studies philosophy.
That term must have been used in your philosophy of language class,
because I certainly don't remember it from my classes. I couldn't
even find the term "logical coherence" in the two philosophy
dictionaries that I have; however, there are coherence theories of
truth which border on what you have suggested. But it is possible that
what you have studied is part of philosophy of language. Philosophy is
a vast subject and for you to pretend that only what you know governs
is I think somewhat childish.
> > > But the concept is not incoherent. On the contrary, the concept is
> > > perfectly coherent. Dick Cheney, being abducted, by beings who are from
> > > another planet. I understand the concept just fine. It makes perfect
> > > sense. And because we can understand it, we can assign a truth value to
> > > it (a truly/properly nonsensical statement would be devoid of meaning,
> > > like the statement "makimaki jugujugu pinopino").
> >
> > I agree with you that the concept is coherent.
> So then if the concept is coherent, why did you call it "conceptually
> incoherent"?
It's because I distinguish between coherence and conceptual
coherence. Coherence means understanding what one is saying; conceptual
coherence is putting the pieces of the puzzle together and finding out
that they do fit. I am not referring to truth, falsehood or lack of
evidence. The question is what is meant by space aliens from Jinsa. If
that cannot be answered, the concept is unclear and therefore it's
conceptually incoherent.
> The discussion of whether a proposition (or collection of propositions)
> is logically coherent is not my own invention. It is a very basic part
> of philosophy.
See my comments above.
> As for me "dropping all objections," that was a misunderstanding on
> your part (though quite possibly poor language on my part is to blame).
> I did not drop all objections because the doctrine of the Trinity is
> logically coherent under Craig's view. Craig's version caused me to
> drop by objection to the Trinity, and, aside from that, other arguments
> from Craig caused me to drop all my other original objections to
> Christianity.
It seems that the only difference in what you were saying earlier and
now is the word "original." Craig satisfied all your earlier
objections but because you are an atheist/agnostic you had to come up
with new ones. Am I understanding you correctly?
> > It is more of a comparison than an analogy, and as I stated earlier I
> > simply don't see the parallel between the two examples. See my comments
> > below.
> I brought it in because of your point that while Craig's version of the
> doctrine is logically coherent, so too is the proposition "Dick Cheney
> was kidnapped by space aliens". That sort of point poisoned the well in
> that it gave the impression of the absurd.So I pulled in a similar
> situation from Islam (I had an objection to a specific doctrine within
> Islam, on the grounds that the doctrine was logically incoherent, and a
> brilliant Muslim offered an alternative interpretation, and my
> objection evaporated). So too, the analogy is pertinent because just as
> my declaring that Qur'anic inheritance laws are logically coherent is
> not an endorsement of (or conversion to) Islam, so too, my declaring
> that the Trinity is logically coherent is not an endorsement of (or
> conversion to) Christianity. It is, as I have said several times, a
> non-controversial position which anyone who is honest can take.
Still, I think the comparison between the Trinity doctrine and Quranic
laws of inheritance is far fetched, triggered by your embarrassment
that what you had stated about Craig was in danger of being considered
"absurd."
> > What I mean by "conceptually logical" is overall internal
> > consistency. Assuming that Jesus is fully God and fully man, fully God
> > prays to fully God, or not knowing how a fully God can become fully man
> > while remaining fully God, is conceptually illogical because by
> > definition, God is separate from man.
> This sentence by you is barely coherent.
It's not me; it's Christianity.
> Let me see if I can distill an
> argument from it. Are you saying that the following propositions...
>
> (1) Jesus is fully God (i.e. in possession of a truly divine nature)
You are creating ambiguity by introducing new terms such as "truly
divine." What does "truly divine" mean? If God the Father is
Fully Divine and Jesus is Fully Divine, what's the difference?
Besides Jesus, can ordinary people be participants in the divine
nature?
> (2) Jesus is fully man (i.e. in possession of a truly human nature)
>
> (3) Jesus, in his humanity, prayed to God (not himself)
>
> (4) Jesus was simultaneously fully God and fully man
But Jesus can't be both at the same time, because "fully" means
that everything that God is, Jesus is. A fruit cannot be fully apple
and fully orange at the same time! If I say to you that I ate an orange
while it was in the state of being an apple, it would be ridiculous.
> ...are "conceptually illogical" because "God is separate from man"?
> That is a difficult concept to wrap my head around (as I'm not sure I
> understand what you're saying), but I *think* you are dealing with
> logical consistency here, e.g. Jesus cannot be both God and man because
> of a tacit premise which you endorse that it is impossible for a being
> to be both God and man. If that is your argument, I would agree that
> the following propositions...
> (1) Jesus is a being who is both God and man.
>
> (2) It is impossible for any being to be both God and man.
>
> ...are logically inconsistent. Of course, I don't endorse the second
> proposition (I don't see on what grounds I should), and it is certainly
> not part of Craig's doctrine.
The reason it isn't is because he worked around the problem by
introducing new words for God: Godhead, Father, and in your case,
"Fully Divine."
> If the second proposition is true, then
> problems of logical inconsistency arise in Craig's doctrine, but I
> don't see on what grounds to believe it is true (i.e. you may take it
> to be axiomatic, by I certainly do not).
By why? A monotheistic God, by definition, is One (SINGLE) God. And in
light of the Old Testament, in which Christians do believe in, that God
has only one personality. So, unless God suddenly developed multiple
personality disorder, one would expect He would have the same power,
knowledge, and essence that He always had when he allegedly came down
to Earth in the form of a human being.
> > > Not at all. For example, the Bible is explicit that Jesus is God, that
> > > the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, that Jesus is the
> > > Creator, that the Father is Creator, that the Holy Spirit is Creator,
> > > that these three distinct beings can be grouped under a single name,
> > > and that despite the fact that each distinct being is God, there are
> > > not three gods, but one God. Furthermore, the Bible also provides us
> > > with the fact that Jesus is God in a sense of predication. All of that
> > > fits very nicely together with Craig's version of the Trinity.
> >
> > You used the word "explicit" which I question because it is not in the
> > examples that you have given.
> Really? Which of the above is not explicitly found in the Bible in your
> opinion?
I don't have time to go through all of them, but let's try the
first three:
(1) John 20:28
"Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
I wouldn't call it 'explicitly' confirming that Jesus is God, as
it was most likely an expression of surprise/wonder. When you hear
somebody say, "Oh my Lord!" It does not mean that he or she is
calling you God.
(2) Romans 9:05.
The New International Version's translation is:
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human
ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen".
But then there is a footnote with an alternative translation:
"Romans 9:5 Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or
Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!"
That changes everything, as "Or Christ" makes a clear distinction
between God and Christ.
(3) Colossians 2:9
For this one, allow me to use the Young's Literal Translation and to
put the verse in context:
6as, then, ye did receive Christ Jesus the Lord, in him walk ye,
7being rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as ye
were taught -- abounding in it in thanksgiving.
8See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the
philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men,
according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,
9because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
10and ye are in him made full, who is the head of all principality and
authority,
11in whom also ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with
hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh in the
circumcision of the Christ,
12being buried with him in the baptism, in which also ye rose with
[him] through the faith of the working of God, who did raise him out of
the dead.
So this was simply a poetic way of saying that divinity existed as
tabernacle [an allusion to the portable sanctuary in which the Jews
carried the Ark of the Covenant] in Christ. Just as the Tabernacle
represented the glory of God but not God per se, the glory of God was
evident in the personality of Christ. If you read the following verses,
it becomes clear that these verses are not to be taken literally. What
you are implying is not as "explicit" as you think.
> > What I had stated was that the more
> > verses you take into consideration, the more confusing
> > God-concept becomes.
> Indeed, the Bible has many seemingly disparate thoughts about the
> nature of God and or divinity, but that is the point of the doctrine of
> the Trinity: to pull all those statements together and put forth a
> coherent theology which takes into account all those claims.
My point has been that it's not working, and Christians might as well
give up and convert to Islam.
> > I can find many more verses which would contradict what your
> > PARAPHRASING, not actual quotes, appear to be suggesting.
> If you say so, but talk is cheap. You tried previously, and you only
> showed your inability to grasp the doctrine being put forth. If you
> wish to have another go at it, that is entirely your choice (and being
> that this is a favorite subject of mine, I would be happy to oblige if
> you did decide to go down that route).
As I have stated many times already, trying to make head or tail of
Trinity is futile and it has to be tossed out.
> > Furthermore, your examples come from the Gospel of John (full of
> > Gnostic symbolism that can hardly be taken literally, just as Sufi
> > expression "becoming one with God" is not taken seriously by Muslims),
> > and hardly any from the other three Gospels.
> So what? I did not say this doctrine is derived from the synoptic
> gospels alone. I said it is derived from the Bible in its present form.
> For example if I were to claim the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth was
> Biblical, I obviously wouldn't be referencing Mark or the sayings of
> Jesus for prooftexts. That wouldn't change the fact that the virgin
> birth is Biblical.
My point was that Trinity is a fundamental belief, and one would expect
equivalent expressions in the other three Gospels.
> > That is significant, especially when you consider the historical fact
> > that the "Son of God" was an old Hebrew term that has been used
> > for several other people in the Bible.
> I have no idea how this is relevant (and I wonder if you know how this
> is possibly relevant).
It is very relevant because it could give new meaning to your
propositions and will stop you from considering Jesus as part of God or
Godhead. Isn't it obvious that if other people have been called
"Son of God" in the Bible, and they are not part of the Godhead,
that it is foolish to change the meaning of the term when it applies to
Jesus? There will be no need to come up with seven propositions to
explain Trinity.
> > My point is that the Four Gospels and the Old Testament,
> > taken together, have to be the basis for judging whether Trinity is
> > supported by the Bible or not. Other books were simply letters or
> > impressions of Church fathers.
> Those "other books" which were "simply letters" are part of the Bible
> (I assume you mean Colossians, Hebrews, and other texts I cited). If we
> are claiming a doctrine is supported by the Bible, we look in the
> Bible. Let me set an analogy. The doctrine that Moses turned a stick
> into a snake is Biblical. I do not believe it is true, and it is never
> mentioned in the synoptic gospels, but it is nonetheless Biblical in
> that it appears in the Bible in its present form. The same goes for the
> various references to the divinity of Jesus I alluded to.
Okay.
> > I any case, I don't want to get into the discussion of whether the
> > Bible is consistent or not.
> As I said, that is entirely your decision.
>
> > I simply would like to focus on your
> > infatuation with Craig.
> I'm more than willing to oblige you in such an investigation, as, since
> I am a fan of Craig, I like to discuss Craig.
Okay.
And my point was, why stop at these verses; why not also include verses
where Jesus is simply called a man, a teacher or a prophet?
Cumulatively, it may not all add up to Trinity.
> > > This bit on "linguistic coherence" and "conceptual coherence" exists in
> > > your own imagination. Logical coherence is directly related to
> > > language, but that means concepts conveyed through the medium of
> > > language (i.e. it is both "linguistic" and "conceptual"). Something is
> > > consistent if it is not contradictory, and something is coherent if it
> > > is consistent and/or in possession of "sense" and "coherence" (i.e. it
> > > refers to something which can be conceptualized, or something which can
> > > have truth value).
> >
> > What you are ignoring is the fact that a "concept" is not necessarily
> > one single statement; it is usually made up of many different ideas,
> > and if those ideas, taken from the same page or book are not consistent
> > with each other, it's conceptually incoherent. In other words, single
> > statements can all be coherent but when put together they may not be.
> Okay, I agree completely that, in theory, it is possible to collect
> coherent propositions, and yet the collection itself is logically
> incoherent. But the 12 propositions collected above, in actuality, do
> not form a logically incoherent set as far as I can see.
And it's because you can't see that Godhead, God and Father are all
one and the same thing.
Denis Giron
> > Your question was originally along the lines of as follows: Craig's
> > version is logically coherent, but then so too is the proposition
> > "Cheney was kidnapped by space aliens," so what is so impressive about
> > that? And I answered the question several times (slightly tweaking the
> > answer as we went along). Basically, being logically coherent is not,
> > in a vacuum, impressive in and of itself. I was impressed with Craig's
> > version of the Trinity because he used a few simple changes (which were
> > from the philosophy of language, yet in keeping with ancient/classical
> > understandings of certain passages) and rescued a very contentious
>
> Specifically, how was the Trinity concept incoherent before Craig made
> it "logically coherent?"
Good question. To be fair, Craig does not make himself out to be the
originator of the Social Trinitarian view, while my posts might have
given the impression that he was. Nonetheless, to be more clear,
versions of the doctrine of the Trinity that *I* had come into contact
with were logically incoherent because they basically put forth the
following idea: each of the three Persons are identical to the Godhead,
yet are not identical to one another. Also there were the basic
problems noted by Imran Aijaz...
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/is-trinitarian-ontology-coherent/
...which were also brought up by Cartwright before him.
> Are you suggesting that just because he is
> using three words for God (God, Godhead and Father),
> assuming that they are not identical, and having a postulate
> that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God that he was able to
> get rid of obvious contradictions which
> were making Trinity "illogically incoherent?"
Simply put: by reinterpreting the copula in the statement "x is God" as
one of predication rather than one of identity, he escaped the problem
of having three distinct individuals, each one of which "is God," yet
there is only one God. What was more interesting was that such a
reinterpretation is supported by John 1:1.
> > > Let me quote what you had stated earlier in this thread:
>
> > > "Regardless, what I said in my last post was that some versions of the
> > > Trinity seemed to have been logically inconsistent, therefore I found
> > > it interesting when a Christian presented a version that was logically
> > > consistent. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that. The
> > > question you need to ask yourself is why you felt motivated to try to
> > > attack this uncontroversial position (which even an atheist, such as
> > > me, can accept!)". June 27, 2006
>
> > > "...when a brilliant Christian philosopher does what I (and I'm
> > > guessing other atheists) assumed could not be done - slightly tweak a
> > > logically incoherent doctrine and make it logically coherent (and do so
> > > via methods of the philosophy of language) - that is impressive". June
> > > 28, 2006
>
> > > So from these statements it is obvious that "logically coherent" was
> > > the part that you impressed you the most, if not the only part.
>
> > Right. But my clarification was motivated by the following from you:
>
> > **{{{the 'only' criterion by which you think that Craig has done an
> > exception job is that he has made the Trinity doctrine "logically
> > coherent."}}}**
>
> That is totally false. I made that statement on July 5 but your
> statements, quoted above, were made on June 27 and June 28,
> respectively!
Which is exactly my point. While I did write those statements above,
after I saw what you wrote on July 5th I just wanted to clarify
regarding that one very small point (because I found the wording odd).
Hence my clarification (from July 6th) was in light of what you wrote
on July 5th.
> The only reason that I am having this lengthy discussion with you is
> not to 'defeat' you in a debate; I am just trying to figure out why an
> atheist like you would become a fan of a Christian Evangelist and find
> his arguments in defense of Trinity impressive. That's all. Early on,
> you led me to believe that it was simply "logical coherence" but after
> I started pressing you for more details, you admitted that it was not
> the only factor. Now, you are saying that you "liked the light he shed
> on certain passages." What are these passages, and what exactly did
> Craig say that has not been said by other Christians?
Regarding what Craig has said that was not said by other Christians, I
cannot say for sure. What I would say is that Craig pulled things
together from other brilliant Christian thinkers that I was not aware
of. For example, when, in one of his debates with Shabir Ally, Craig
spoke of interpretating the copula in the statement "Jesus is God" as
one of predication rather than identity, it was completely new (and
amazing) to me. However, I would later find similar statements were
made by Thomas Morris and Raymond Brown.
> > Not exactly. You accused me of being impressed with Craig's eloquence,
> > and I merely confessed that I am, but I noted that my being impressed
> > by Craig's eloquence is not relevant to whether the doctrine is
> > logically coherent. As for it not being a big deal, I have been saying
> > for quite some time that this is not a controversial position. The fact
> > that an atheist/agnostic (i.e. me) can hold this position should have
> > clued you in that it is not a terribly major victory for Christianity.
>
> I never suggested that your approval of Craig's methodology is victory
> for Christianity. I am only interested in finding out what it takes to
> impress an atheist/agnostic like yourself so that he or she would have
> a favorable view of a religious doctrine, which to me is not even
> rational.
That is simple. Take an atheist who is open-minded, yet believes that
religion X is wholly irrational. Then take a philosopher who is an
apologist for religion X, who resuces a number of doctrines from that
religion from the charge of being irrational. Introduce the atheist to
the arguments of the philosopher, and there is a chance that atheist is
going to be impressed with those arguments.
What Craig did was take Christianity, and present it in a wholly new
light for me. Admittedly, most (or even all) of his arguments are
influenced by brilliant Christians before him. Nonetheless, I was
ignorant of such things until coming into contact with Craig (and,
judging by how many people on the net and on campus seem to have never
heard of many of the arguments I have since endorsed, I take it that a
large number of people were like me, i.e. also ignorant of these
arguments).
> > I think Craig employed what might be called substantive argument for
> > the doctrine of the Trinity at least being logically coherent.
> > Remember, a long-standing charge (among several) against the doctrine
> > of the Trinity is that it is logically coherent. Craig's version at
> > least escapes that.
>
> I think you mean, "not logically coherent."
Yes indeed, that is what I meant. I actually made analogous typos
several times in my post (e.g. saying Craig rescued the doctrine of the
Trinity from the charge of logical coherence, when I meant he rescued
it from the charge of logical INCOHERENCE).
> As I stated above, if he is escaping that charge by using three different
> words for God (God, Godhead and Father) to avoid incoherence and
> asserting that God is Son of God and God is Holy Ghost by predication.
> That is hardly substantive.
All versions of the Trinity, including Craig's, assert the following:
(1) The Father is God.
(2) The Son is God.
(3) The Holy Spirit is God.
(4) There are not three gods but one God.
All four propositions are supported in the Bible in its present form.
The long-standing question, however, was how all four propositions
could be true simultaneously (again, see Imran Aijaz' wonderful
critique). What Craig did was accomplish what I though could not be
accomplished: he made it possible for all three propositions to be true
simultaneously (i.e. he rendered them logically consistent). He did
that by interpreting the copula in the first three propositions as one
of predication rather than identity. It is a subtle point that many
(including you) have difficulty grasping, but it makes all the
difference in the world as far as traditional issues/criticism of
logical coherence are concerned (e.g. again Imran Aijaz' wonderful
article).
> > > If I understand you correctly, a "logical coherent" is one which is:
> > > (a). Not self-contradictory, and
> > > (b) That which is properly nonsensical.
>
> > Does (b) contain a typo? I have mostly employed "logically coherent" in
> > a way that is nearly identical to "logically consistent".
>
> What does "logically" mean in your term "logically consistent,"
> and consistent with what?
Logically means pertaining to logic. It is an issue of logic.
Logically consistent is an issue that comes up in logic. Are two
propositions logically consistent? That means if we examine/analyze
them within the context of formal language, do they fit the definition
of consistent employed in formal logic?
And consistent with what? With one another!
> > However, in
> > the above, I have also included the caveat that a logically coherent
> > statement or doctrine not be properly nonsensical (i.e. it should at
> > least have truth value!).
>
> Well, any statement that is in the form of "X 'is' Y" can have
> a truth value.
It *can* have truth value, but what truth value we give it would depend
on what those variables represent, and how we interpet the copula.
> So what's the big deal here? Even before Craig,
> Christianity claimed that Jesus is God. How is it "logically
> incoherent?"
"Jesus is God" by itself is not logically incoherent regardless of how
we interpret the copula. However, the following propositions...
(1) Jesus is God.
(2) The Father is God.
(3) Jesus is not the Father
...*seemed* logically incoherent (and indeed they are if the copula in
every single proposition is one of identity). However, if the first two
propositions employ a copula of predication, while the third employs
one of identity, then the three propositions are logically coherent.
> > Subjective? If I actually did require that the doctrine be "properly
> > nonsensical" (i.e. so devoid of sense and meaning that a truth value
> > cannot be assigned to it), that would be utterly ridiculous! Luckily,
> > that was not any requirement of mine.
>
> Okay.
>
> > > So, for you "X and not-X" is NOT "logically coherent" but Jesus being
> > > "Fully God" and praying to himself [Jesus the God and not God (while
> > > on the Cross)] is not. What you can "conceptualize" after a few drinks
> > > may not be what others and I are capable of.
>
> > First, I think "X and not-X" is clearly logically inconsistent, thus if
> > logical coherence rests on logical consistency, then that proposition
> > would be logically incoherent.
>
> I don't why you are using "if" because you have already stated
> that, "I have mostly employed 'logically coherent' in a way that
> is nearly identical to 'logically consistent'."
I just wanted to be clear. That was all. But yes, indeed, I do use
logically coherent in such a way that is intimately related to logical
consistency.
> > Second, Jesus "praying to himself"? You are still thinking of modalism,
> > and thus still don't understand the doctrine. Jesus is *NOT* identical
> > to the Godhead, and *NOT* identical to the other persons. Therefore,
> > when Jesus, in his humanity, prayed, in no way was he praying to
> > himself.
>
> Forget Godhead. Is Jesus God or not? Or, is Jesus a part-time God?
The doctrine asserts that "Jesus is God," but as has been explained to
you ad nauseum, this is a statement of predication. It is not stating
that Jesus is a god by himself. It is stating that he possesses
attributes of deity, that he is divine.
As for "Godhead," that refers to the Deity. Remember the doctrine holds
that there is only one God, that means one deity, and that deity (who
is comprised of the three persons) is referred to as the Godhead. This
too has been explained to you before.
> > Third, "Fully God" in a sense of predication, as was noted previously,
> > would be understood as "truly divine". It does not mean he is a deity
> > or identical to the Godhead (just to be clear).
>
> I think the confusion is being created by your use of different words
> for God (Godhead, Father, Deity, the Divine etc). Let's just use ONLY
> one word: God. Period.
The different words are meant to help you understand what is going on.
That is what helps the confusion evaporate. If you would actually try
to understand the posts you are responding to, you would understand why
the different words are employed (i.e. "God" is being used in multiple
senses, as it is in the Bible).
As for the different notions of God, remember that a year ago you
challenged me to put forth this doctrine employing set theoretical
notation, and I did so here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/45579dd0991235bc
Well, that post shows the different notions of "God" being employed
(e.g. G and G-prime).
> Just to confirm, when you use the word "predication," do you mean
> assigning attribute or do you mean having a truth-value (having a part
> in a proposition that can be affirmed or denied)? I thought I had
> understood you, but now I am not so sure anymore.
Craig explained it nicely, and even you, some time ago, regurgitated
the proper understanding back to me. A statement of predication is
assigning an attribute. So, for example, "Cicero is Roman" is a
statement of predication. If I state that it is also the case that
"Aurelio is Roman" it does not follow that Cicero is therefore the same
person as Aurelio. However, a statement of identity would be "Cicero is
Tully," where those are two different names for the same individual.
> If you are assigning the 'attribute' of "Fully God" to Jesus,
> then in essence isn't he God? Or perhaps you are thinking that
> ascribing an attribute to something doesn't make it so. For example,
> if I say "Bush is a jackass." It doesn't mean that Bush in
> reality is a jackass; we are simply assuming that he has the quality of
> a jackass. Similarly, when somebody says, "Jesus is God," it does
> not mean that Jesus is in reality God; he just has some qualities that
> are reminiscent of Divine attributes. If that's what you have in
> mind, then this interpretation neither jibes with traditional
> Christianity, the Fully God concept, nor with several passages of the
> Bible that you have taken quite literally.
Under the doctrine being presented here, "Jesus is God" does NOT mean
Jesus is the same being as the one God (i.e. thje Godhead). Nor, for
that matter, does "Jesus is fully God" mean he is identical to the one
God (i.e. the Godhead). The statement "Jesus is fully God" was, in many
previous discussions, interpreted in light of the Latin version of the
Nicean Creed which employs "Deus verus" - "true God" or even "truly
divine". The doctrine is elaborated to state that Jesus possessed a
divine nature which was truly and unabiguously divine, but that did not
make him a god, because there is only one God, and Jesus is not that
entity (he is part of that entity, but not identical to it). The
analogy that has been given is the leg bone of a feline. That bone is
truly and unambiguously feline, but that does not mean it is a feline
(it is not identical to the feline of which it is a part).
> If you are using "predication" in the sense of having a
> proposition, in which the predicate can be affirmed or denied, and thus
> it's "logically coherent" from your point of view, then saying,
> "Jesus is God," is simply an assertion, and what Craig has done is
> not remarkable.
Again, "Jesus is God" is not the sole issue. What was issue was a
larger collection of propositions of which that proposition was a part.
Craig offered an alternative interpretation of that proposition, and
the collection of propositions as a whole was rescued from the charge
of logical incoherence as a result. It was something I had never seen
before, and that is why I found it impressive.
> > So, regarding the above, the notion is of a Godhead of which Jesus is a
> > proper part, and Jesus is himself in possession of divine qualities (he
> > is God in a sense of predication). He also possesses a human nature.
> > None of this strikes me as nonsensical in the least. I, an
> > atheist/agnostic, understand it quite clearly.
>
> Let me break it down for you. You/Craig is assuming that "Godhead"
> is like an umbrella under which stand the 'real' God [the Father],
> Jesus [the Son], and the Holy Ghost.
Not quite, but almost. As per Craig's description, the Godhead is the
one God. That one God is comprised of three persons: the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit, and each one of those Persons are "God" in a
sense of predication (i.e. divine, and a proper part of the Godhead -
the Deity - the one God).
> Both Jesus and the Holy Ghost have
> some attributes of the Father, and therefore can be called "God,"
> but are not identical to the Father.
All three persons have the attribute of being divine and being proper
parts of the Godhead.
> When Jesus steps outside of the
> umbrella, he is "fully human" and no longer under "Godhead."
No. Jesus is always fully God (i.e. divine), and never not part of the
Godhead.
> He starts acting foolishly and doesn't know when the season for
> figs is, for instance.
See either Thomas Morris' "The Logic of God Incarnate," or Craig's
"Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview". Needless to say,
this moves to a related doctrine, namely the diophysite doctrine that
Jesus possessed a human nature and a divine nature. So Jesus being
limited in power and knowledge represent his human nature.
Before you repeat some previously stated objections, try to ponder
Craig's analogy of a being who possesses both an ant nature and a human
nature.
> He is put on the cross and he starts bemoaning the fact
> that God the Father has forsaken him. God was probably saying,
> "Jesus, you get back in here!" And as he was leaving, Jesus looked
> at the crowd and said something like, "I'll send you my brother,
> Comforter, he's the Holy Ghost."
>
> The problem with this picture, besides me caricaturization, is that if
> you fold the umbrella, you'll end up with two or three distinct
> beings, and you will be able to say that Jesus acts like God, in some
> instances, but he is not God, which is contrary to the traditional
> Christian point of view.
There is certainly some divergence between some of what Craig says and
what other Christians have said (e.g. Craig himself notes that his
doctrine is at odds with certain medieval Catholic creedal
proclamations, and if I understand the official Catechism of the Roman
Catholic Church correctly, his doctrine may be at odds with that as
well). Nonetheless, suppose we have two Christians, putting forth two
different versions of the Trinity, and suppose further that one version
suffers from logical incoherence (e.g. the problems laid out in Imran
Aijaz' piece), while the other does not. In such a situation (which
seems to be precisely the situation we are in) I don't see the problem.
I am only claiming to be impressed with the version which is logically
coherent (or the process by which it became such), not the other.
> See my comments above regarding using different names for God.
I could barely make sense of those comments, though it seemed to me
that you merely misunderstood what was going on (which is due, in part,
to you forgetting issues already covered, thus causing us to go in
circles).
> > I have no idea what you're trying to say. A doctrine can be boiled down
> > to a collection of propositions, and that collection of propositions
> > can be logically coherent or logically incoherent. This is not some
> > concept I pulled out of thin air. It is a realm of philosophy and
> > logic.
>
> It all depends on consistency of language, word meaning, and how
> conceptually connected propositions are. Creating multiple names for
> the same person, changing the meaning by ascribing new attributes, and
> taking each proposition in isolation can create the impression of
> coherency but when you look below the surface, the pieces of the puzzle
> don't fit together because you keep trying to push several pieces at
> the same spot.
Whatever. The "pieces" of the puzzle as have been put forth in this
long discussion (e.g. in the rendering of the doctrine into set
theoretical notation) fit together just fine as far as issues of
logical coherence go.
> > Just because you think it is a "semantic trick" does not make it
> > inconsistent. It was a clarification (and for your information, this is
> > not my introduction, nor is it Craig's - the words "God" "Divine" and
> > "Godhead" have been part of Christian terminology since before any of
> > us were born).
>
> So what? We have 99 attributes of God, and all those attributes refer
> to the same being. Just because God has been called by different names
> in the Bible, it doesn't mean that there is a distinct personality
> attached to each name.
To answer your question "so what?" the reason I mentioned the fact that
these words have been part of Christian terminology since before you,
me, or Craig were born is because you seem to think Craig or myself
have invented these terms (just because you were ignorant of them).
"God" is, depending on the usage, either a noun or an adjective.
"Divine" is clearly an adjective. And "Godhead" is the one God, the
Deity (a term employed by English speaking Christians for at least four
hundred years, and possibly as long as five hundred years or more!).
> > The Godhead refers to the Deity (Divinity in toto).
> > Beings who are God in a sense of predication, as per this doctrine, are
> > divine beings who are proper parts of that Godhead, but these
> > beings/Persons are not individual gods.
>
> Do Christians worship God or Godhead? Jesus, as man, worshipped God or
> Godhead?
Christians worship three persons whom the perceive to collectively form
one God. What exactly different Christians focus on when they worship
will vary from Christian to Christian. But the point is that, as per
this doctrine, there is only one God, and that is the Godhead.
> > No, you misunderstood me. Originally I noted that Craig's rescuing of
> > the Trinity from logical coherence took away one of my original
> > objections to Christianity. Then I went on to confess (though perhaps
> > my language was not clear enough) that, aside from that, Craig also
> > took away all my other original objections (i.e. with regard to other
> > aspects of critiquing Christianity, aside from the Trinity), and as a
> > result I had to come up with new objections. Are you opposed to
> > honesty?
>
> You are saying that I misunderstood, but actually you are confirming
> what I think you had said. Anyway, why you felt the need to come up
> with new objections? That sounds like a grudge rather than an honest
> disagreement.
As I originally said, I'm not proud of what I did. After Craig
eliminated all my original objections to Christianity, I continued to
disbelieve in Christianity, and then found new arguments (rather than
the other way around). As for why? I don't know. An obvious internal
bias towards Christianity I suppose (as I have joked with friends, it
was the gut feeling that "grown men don't believe such things").
Though, in my defense, I would note that not having any objections to
Christianity is not necessarily a reason to convert to Christianity
(for example, I, personally, don't have any real objections to the
Vaishnava faith, but that does not mean, necessarily, I should become a
Hare Krishna).
> > > Why not take seven propositions from Islam, keep them "logically
> > > coherent" and drop all your objections to Islam?
>
> > I have objections to Christianity and I have objections to Islam. A
> > particular doctrine being logically coherent within either faith does
> > not, by itself, change that fact.
>
> What exactly is your biggest objection to Islam. Just one reason will
> be sufficient. [You may want to start another thread, as this thread
> has gone on for far too long already].
I have several objections to Islam, and I do not know which one is the
biggest. The gist of them, off the top of my head, is a lack of
evidence, a morally inadequate conception of God, and reasons to lean
in favor of the position that Islam does not match with historical
reality. Perhaps some of my arguments are best expressed in the
following article:
http://oopi.us/chistianity-vs-islam.html
It is a work in progress, but the general idea is that, whatever
Christianity's other problems might be, there are grounds on which I
consider Christianity philosophically superior to Islam (thus if I'm
going to reject Christianity, I'm certainly going to reject Islam - or,
to put this another way, if I were to embrace one of the major world
faiths, it wouldn't be Islam).
I agree that none of this is relevant to this thread. If you want to
start a new thread, fine by me, but if not, just as good. What I wrote
above was to help you understand why a faith having a doctrine that can
be summed up in seven logically coherent propositions is not enough to
convert or drop all my objections to that faith.
> > You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, Craig is not
> > merely employing "semantic" tricks, nor do I recall him identifying the
> > Father with the Godhead (in fact, if you recall, I even noted that one
> > potential problem with his doctrine might be how easily one can come to
> > the conclusion that the Bible equates the Father with the Godhead,
> > while Craig takes the opposite position).
>
> I guess what you are saying is that Craig's view contradicts the
> Bible, or the obvious interpretation of it, and perhaps he is the one
> who doesn't know what he's talking about. What you are calling
> "potential problem" is the card that brings down the house of (7)
> cards that you had constructed!
The issue of whether the Father is the Godhead, or merely a proper part
of the Godhead, is indeed an interesting one. If it is the case that
the Godhead is identical to the Father, then indeed Craig's doctrine,
while still logically coherent, would became scripturally inconsistent
(i.e. it would contradict the Bible). In such a case the doctrine would
have to be tweaked (i.e. small changes would need to be made).
> > That being said, indeed it seems Craig speaks the language of the
> > Philosopher, and if you don't speak that language, you're going to have
> > difficulty understanding him. I know that had I not studied the
> > philosophy of language (even at the most basic level), I would not have
> > caught basic notions like predication vis a vis identity (i.e. how to
> > proper interpret the copula in a sentence).
>
> As I have stated many times already, I have studied philosophy
> [actually, most of it long time ago] but not the "philosophy of
> language," which you have come to assume as the only philosophy that
> counts.
I don't assume philosophy of language is the only realm that "counts,"
but I do believe that the philosophy of language as well as formal
logic (two realms which have a great deal of overlap) are the ones most
relevant to this discussion.
> Anyway, I am not even getting into philosophy; I am simply
> trying to understand what impressed you the most about Craig's ideas.
> Now, you are claiming that he speaks "the language of
> philosophers." So, perhaps, you were simply impressed by his diction.
No. Again, what impressed me with regard to the Trinity was that Craig
shined a whole new light on the doctrine (i.e. he offered a simple way
to look at the doctrine from a completely different angle, one by which
the charge of logical incoherence suddenly evaporates).
> > "Married bachelor by way of predication" does not mean anything new.
> > This shows that you still don't understand the concept. "Married X" is
> > a predication. It means X bares the predicate of being married.
> > "Bachelor" is a noun which bares the tacit predicate of being not
> > married. Thus a married bachelor is one who is simultaneously married
> > and not married. In other words, the concept is logically inconsistent,
> > and that is why I declared it logically incoherent.
>
> But that depends on the meaning of "bachelor" isn't it?
If you want to offer a different definition, then we can discuss that.
But working with the definitions I gave, the concept is logically
incoherent.
> You correctly stated that it means, "not married." I can just as easily
> argue that "Man" means "Not God," and since Jesus was a man, He
> cannot be God at the same time, just as a married man cannot be a
> bachelor at the same time. If Jesus can act like God and be called God,
> why can't a married man like me act like a bachelor and be called a
> "bachelor." ;-)
I alluded to this in my previous post, and I will get into this below.
Indeed, if the following proposition...
(1) A man cannot be God in any sense.
...is true, then the proposition...
(2) Jesus is God.
...is false (irrespective of how we understand the copula). Those two
propositions contradict one another (under the understanding that Jesus
was a man at least). I would note, however, that I see no reason to
believe proposition (1) is actually true, and furthermore, it is not
part of the propositions of the relevant doctrine, thus I see no reason
to consider it a refutation of the relevant doctrine.
Nonetheless, let me be clear here. *IF* proposition (1) is true, then
the doctrine under discussion contains false statements. Also, *IF*
proposition (1) is explicitly made part of the doctrine, or is at least
assumed, then the doctrine becomes logicall incoherent. But those are
two big ifs.
> It seems to me that the only reason you are calling it "logically
> incoherent nonetheless" is because "married" and "bachelor"
> are opposites. As I stated above, I consider "Man (Jesus), the God"
> as also contradictory and inconsistent and therefore "logically
> incoherent."
Okay. I simply don't agree with you. In other words, I don't take such
a position to be axiomatic. It has not been demonstrated to be true
(which would be needed in order for it to be a necessary component of
any pondering/examination/analysis of the relevant doctrine).
> That term must have been used in your philosophy of language class,
> because I certainly don't remember it from my classes.
I seriously wonder about what classes you took.
> I couldn't even find the term "logical coherence" in the two
> philosophy dictionaries that I have; however, there are
> coherence theories of truth which border on what you have
> suggested. But it is possible that what you have studied is
> part of philosophy of language. Philosophy is
> a vast subject and for you to pretend that only what you know governs
> is I think somewhat childish.
I never claimed that what I studied is the sum total of philosophy, or
anything along those lines. My point was that a notion of logical
coherence is not a new idea, rather it is one that any philosophy major
would be familiar with. For example, consider the following post:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/dab536fedf509de0
It is a post by Imran Aijaz, himself a philosophy major, and it
predates any post by me on the subject of Craig's version of the
Trinity. In that post, Imran Aijaz summarizes the doctrine of the
Trinity in seven propositions and then challenges Jameel (AKA
MyTajMahal), and I suppose anyone else interested, to attempt to show
how those seven propositions could possibly be "logically coherent"
(his words). I know exactly what he meant, and I'm sure others
understood him as well. Now, not only did Imran not go to the same
university as me, our respective universities weren't even in the same
continent! Do you think perhaps that might give a clue as to how
prevalent this simple and basic concept is among philosophy majors?
> > > I agree with you that the concept is coherent.
>
> > So then if the concept is coherent, why did you call it "conceptually
> > incoherent"?
>
> It's because I distinguish between coherence and conceptual
> coherence.
Really? So you can say both "X is a *CONCEPT*" and "X is *COHERENT*"
but that does not mean "X is *CONCEPTUALLY COHERENT*"?
> Coherence means understanding what one is saying; conceptual
> coherence is putting the pieces of the puzzle together and finding out
> that they do fit. I am not referring to truth, falsehood or lack of
> evidence. The question is what is meant by space aliens from Jinsa. If
> that cannot be answered, the concept is unclear and therefore it's
> conceptually incoherent.
Well, suppose we define "Jinsa"? I know the concept of space aliens is
clearly understood. So, removing the word "Jinsa," is "Dick Cheney was
kidnapped by space aliens" a proposition which can fit your definition
of "conceptually coherent"? Do "all the pieces of the puzzle fit"?
> > The discussion of whether a proposition (or collection of propositions)
> > is logically coherent is not my own invention. It is a very basic part
> > of philosophy.
>
> See my comments above.
I have read everything in your post, and the above point still stands.
> > As for me "dropping all objections," that was a misunderstanding on
> > your part (though quite possibly poor language on my part is to blame).
> > I did not drop all objections because the doctrine of the Trinity is
> > logically coherent under Craig's view. Craig's version caused me to
> > drop by objection to the Trinity, and, aside from that, other arguments
> > from Craig caused me to drop all my other original objections to
> > Christianity.
>
> It seems that the only difference in what you were saying earlier and
> now is the word "original." Craig satisfied all your earlier
> objections but because you are an atheist/agnostic you had to come up
> with new ones. Am I understanding you correctly?
Roughly speaking, yes.
> > I brought it in because of your point that while Craig's version of the
> > doctrine is logically coherent, so too is the proposition "Dick Cheney
> > was kidnapped by space aliens". That sort of point poisoned the well in
> > that it gave the impression of the absurd.So I pulled in a similar
> > situation from Islam (I had an objection to a specific doctrine within
> > Islam, on the grounds that the doctrine was logically incoherent, and a
> > brilliant Muslim offered an alternative interpretation, and my
> > objection evaporated). So too, the analogy is pertinent because just as
> > my declaring that Qur'anic inheritance laws are logically coherent is
> > not an endorsement of (or conversion to) Islam, so too, my declaring
> > that the Trinity is logically coherent is not an endorsement of (or
> > conversion to) Christianity. It is, as I have said several times, a
> > non-controversial position which anyone who is honest can take.
>
> Still, I think the comparison between the Trinity doctrine and Quranic
> laws of inheritance is far fetched, triggered by your embarrassment
> that what you had stated about Craig was in danger of being considered
> "absurd."
The comparison is not far fetched if the only similarity required is
that they be logically coherent. "Absurd" seems to be an emotional
statement by you born by your hatred of Christianity (which is why I
gave the analogy of an angry atheist objecting to my claim that Islamic
inheritance laws are logically coherent by asserting that the notion of
some deity sending down laws to shaven chimps on a backwater planet is
"absurd" - your objection is as sophomoric as that sort of reply from
an angry atheist).
> > > What I mean by "conceptually logical" is overall internal
> > > consistency. Assuming that Jesus is fully God and fully man, fully God
> > > prays to fully God, or not knowing how a fully God can become fully man
> > > while remaining fully God, is conceptually illogical because by
> > > definition, God is separate from man.
>
> > This sentence by you is barely coherent.
>
> It's not me; it's Christianity.
No, it is your poor understanding of Christianity.
> > Let me see if I can distill an
> > argument from it. Are you saying that the following propositions...
> >
> > (1) Jesus is fully God (i.e. in possession of a truly divine nature)
>
> You are creating ambiguity by introducing new terms such as "truly
> divine." What does "truly divine" mean?
Actually divine. In possession of the attributes of deity, and, in the
case of this doctrine specifically, being a proper part of the Godhead.
> If God the Father is Fully Divine and Jesus is Fully Divine, what's
> the difference?
So far, no difference between those two propositions (except that two
different individuals are being referred to).
> Besides Jesus, can ordinary people be participants in the divine
> nature?
I dunno. According to this doctrine they are not, ragardless of if they
could.
> > (2) Jesus is fully man (i.e. in possession of a truly human nature)
> >
> > (3) Jesus, in his humanity, prayed to God (not himself)
> >
> > (4) Jesus was simultaneously fully God and fully man
>
> But Jesus can't be both at the same time, because "fully" means
> that everything that God is, Jesus is.
Wrong, which is why I defined fully God in the sense of truly divine.
So, analogously, a part of a feline can be fully feline in the sense
that it is truly feline (truly in possession of being feline), but that
does not mean it is a feline by itself. It does not mean that the part
has every quality that the whole has. Relevant to this doctrine, the
Godhead is triune, but Jesus is *NOT* triune, therefore it is false to
say that what is true of the Godhead is true of Jesus.
> A fruit cannot be fully apple and fully orange at the same time!
But a person can be truly wet and truly red at the same time. So it is
possible for a person to bare predicate X and predicate Y at the same
time.
> If I say to you that I ate an orange
> while it was in the state of being an apple,
> it would be ridiculous.
Okay, but that is not the least bit relevant here. Having trouble
staying focused?
> > ...are "conceptually illogical" because "God is separate from man"?
> > That is a difficult concept to wrap my head around (as I'm not sure I
> > understand what you're saying), but I *think* you are dealing with
> > logical consistency here, e.g. Jesus cannot be both God and man because
> > of a tacit premise which you endorse that it is impossible for a being
> > to be both God and man. If that is your argument, I would agree that
> > the following propositions...
>
> > (1) Jesus is a being who is both God and man.
> >
> > (2) It is impossible for any being to be both God and man.
> >
> > ...are logically inconsistent. Of course, I don't endorse the second
> > proposition (I don't see on what grounds I should), and it is certainly
> > not part of Craig's doctrine.
>
> The reason it isn't is because he worked around the problem by
> introducing new words for God: Godhead, Father, and in your case,
> "Fully Divine."
No, that is not the reason. You're showing your sheer unfamiliarity
with the topic now. If proposition (2) above is true, then even Craig's
doctrine (even with the different concepts which, by the way, do not
originate with him) suffers, because Craig's doctrine contradicts
proposition (2) above. This fact has nothing to do with words like
"Godhead". The issue, however, is why Craig should think proposition
(2) above is true? Because some Muslim in an unmoderated newsgroup
asserted it? Because it appears in the sacred text of some other
religion? Perhaps you have another reason?
> > If the second proposition is true, then
> > problems of logical inconsistency arise in Craig's doctrine, but I
> > don't see on what grounds to believe it is true (i.e. you may take it
> > to be axiomatic, by I certainly do not).
>
> By why? A monotheistic God, by definition, is One (SINGLE) God.
Right, and in Craig's doctrine there is exactly One (SINGLE) God - that
is the Godhead, the Deity. It is shocking that despite the fact that I
have beaten this subject like a drum beat for well over a year, you
still don't understand even the most simple parts (yet if I have to
repeat something, because you still don't get it, you accuse me of
repeating myself!!!).
> And in light of the Old Testament, in which Christians do believe in,
> that God has only one personality.
That is *FAR* from clear. How one interprets Genesis 1:26-27, or
Genesis 18:1-3, can still be a hotly disputed subject. Also passages
such as Jeremiah 23:5-6, Isaiah 9:6 and Daniel 7:13-14 raise all sorts
of questions about the relationship between God and the Messiah (cf.
blogs such as http://moshiach.ws or
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/evedmoshiach770 to see certain Chasidic Jews
grappling with this very subject). Furthermore, from the perspective of
a Christian, the New Testament (which they take as revelation), offers
interpretations of other passages which muddies the waters even more
(e.g. the kind of exegesis Hebrews 1:8 applies to Psalms 45:6).
> So, unless God suddenly developed multiple
> personality disorder, one would expect He would have the same power,
> knowledge, and essence that He always had when he allegedly came down
> to Earth in the form of a human being.
The doctrine being espoused here is not that the Godhead - the Deity,
GOD - came down in the form of a human being. The doctrine is that the
Godhead - the Deity, GOD - was comprised of three distinct Persons, one
of whom took on a human nature (cf. Philippians 2:6-7). You need to
understand the difference.
> > > You used the word "explicit" which I question because it is not in the
> > > examples that you have given.
>
> > Really? Which of the above is not explicitly found in the Bible in your
> > opinion?
>
> I don't have time to go through all of them, but let's try the
> first three:
>
> (1) John 20:28
>
> "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
>
> I wouldn't call it 'explicitly' confirming that Jesus is God, as
> it was most likely an expression of surprise/wonder. When you hear
> somebody say, "Oh my Lord!" It does not mean that he or she is
> calling you God.
This has been covered already. As you were told a year ago, the Greek
text has "eipen auto" - i.e. "he said TO HIM". The most obvious and
literal reading is that Thomas is addressing Jesus as Lord and God.
Also related, as was noted about six months ago, I checked the book
George Anton Kiraz, "Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels:
Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions,"
(E.J. Brill, 1996). This work provided three different ancient Syriac
versions of this passage, which you can see in the following images...
http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_sinaiticus.gif
http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_harqlean.gif
http://www.oopi.us/gifs/semitic-22-charset.gif
...all three of which also render the Syriac into Hebrew (or "square"
characters). In every single instance appears the words "amar *LEH*" or
"he said *TO HIM*". Thomas was clearly addressing Jesus.
> (2) Romans 9:05.
>
> The New International Version's translation is:
>
> "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human
> ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen".
>
> But then there is a footnote with an alternative translation:
>
> "Romans 9:5 Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or
> Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!"
>
> That changes everything, as "Or Christ" makes a clear distinction
> between God and Christ.
This too has been touched on previously. I myself once wondered if the
NIV translation was merely "discovered" by modern Christians who were
more zealous about finding Jesus' divinity in the text of the Bible
(aside from the footnote, compare the NIV with the KJV). But then last
January I got to look over the Mt. Sinai Codex 151 (an Arabic
translation dating to the 9th century) [cf. Harvey Staal, "Mt. Sinai
Arabic Codex 151," Vol. I, Pauline Epistles, (Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalum, Vol. 452, 1983), p. 23], and there Romans
9:5, referring to Jesus, reads "huwa ilaahun `alaa kullin" (literally,
"he is god over all,"). If a 9th century Arabic translation had this
reading, it showed this was not some relatively new interpretation.
While there has been considerable debate on the subject in academic
circles, it is nonetheless worth noting that the interpretation that
the text of Romans 9:5 is calling Jesus God predates even the
above-mentioned Arabic translation. The various Church Fathers were
almost unanimously in agreement with this interpretation, and even
Jerome's Latin Vulgate reads "qui est super omnia Deus benedictus" (who
is above all the blessed God). The Tyndale, Geneva, Coverdale, and
Bishops Bibles all agree with this position as well (and all of which
predate the KJV).
The literal reading is that the fullness of Divinity (or of the
Godhead) resided bodily in Christ. That is as explicit as it gets:
Jesus is divinity enclothed corporeally. That is why it is absolutely
no surprise that the author of this text also said, point blank, that
Jesus created all things (Colossians 1:16). So, yes, read it in the
full context: Jesus, our Creator, is God in a body (he is an
encapsulation of divinity manifested corporeally).
So these three passages stand as explicit references to the divinity of
Jesus in the Bible (and there are more blatant references, like
Revelation 1:8 which, point blank, calls Jesus "the Lord God").
So look - if you want to say that in reality Jesus was not actually
divine, I agree 100%. However, if you're going to claim the Bible does
not explicitly describe Jesus as God, then you're being absolutely
ridiculous. For an analogy, note that I, personally, do not believe
Jesus was born of a virgin, but I think it is ridiculous to argue that
the Bible does not say Jesus was born of a virgin.
> > Indeed, the Bible has many seemingly disparate thoughts about the
> > nature of God and or divinity, but that is the point of the doctrine of
> > the Trinity: to pull all those statements together and put forth a
> > coherent theology which takes into account all those claims.
>
> My point has been that it's not working, and Christians might as well
> give up and convert to Islam.
Actually, now that I have (unlike you) given the matter an honest
assessment, it seems to me that it works just fine. The Bible clearly
calls three different beings "God" yet also clearly states that there
are not three gods, but rather only one God. There is no more reason
here for a Christian to convert to Islam than there is for him to
become an atheist.
> > If you say so, but talk is cheap. You tried previously, and you only
> > showed your inability to grasp the doctrine being put forth. If you
> > wish to have another go at it, that is entirely your choice (and being
> > that this is a favorite subject of mine, I would be happy to oblige if
> > you did decide to go down that route).
>
> As I have stated many times already, trying to make head or tail of
> Trinity is futile and it has to be tossed out.
No, clearly a doctrine like the Trinity is implied by the Bible in its
present form. Some versions of the Trinity seems to work quite well.
There is no more reason to toss this doctrine out than there is to toss
out the doctrine of the virgin birth.
> > So what? I did not say this doctrine is derived from the synoptic
> > gospels alone. I said it is derived from the Bible in its present form.
> > For example if I were to claim the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth was
> > Biblical, I obviously wouldn't be referencing Mark or the sayings of
> > Jesus for prooftexts. That wouldn't change the fact that the virgin
> > birth is Biblical.
>
> My point was that Trinity is a fundamental belief, and one would expect
> equivalent expressions in the other three Gospels.
The virgin birth is a fundamental belief in Christianity, yet mention
of that too is absent in all but two books of the New Testament. Should
Christians chuck belief in the virgin birth as well? Or do you have an
emotional investment in that one?
> > > That is significant, especially when you consider the historical fact
> > > that the "Son of God" was an old Hebrew term that has been used
> > > for several other people in the Bible.
>
> > I have no idea how this is relevant (and I wonder if you know how this
> > is possibly relevant).
>
> It is very relevant because it could give new meaning to your
> propositions and will stop you from considering Jesus as part of God or
> Godhead.
Jesus is not part of the Godhead simply because he is called the "son
of God". Did you honestly think that was where the doctrine was derived
from? Solely from the line "son of God"? As you have been shown, Jesus
is called God, and other Persons (e.g. the Father and the Holy Spirit)
have been called God, yet there is only one God. That alone leads to a
multipersonal conception of God. Furthermore, Jesus being "the Son" is
significant in the way it is used. In the triadic formula of Matthew
28:19, only one Son is meant. Jesus is the son of God in a unique sense
(which is also alluded to in Mark 12:1-12, John 1:18, Hebrews 1:8, and
elsewhere).
> Isn't it obvious that if other people have been called
> "Son of God" in the Bible, and they are not part of the
> Godhead,
Yes, that is *VERY* obvious. That is why when Jesus is called "the son
of God" it is meant in a unique sense. There are many passages that
refer to Jesus as "the Son" and they obviously don't mean just any son
of God. This particular son of God is also himself God.
> that it is foolish to change the meaning of the term when it applies to
> Jesus?
The Bible clearly uses it in a special sense. Perhaps, even you are I
are children of God under the right interpretation. But just because
1Man4All might be a son of God, that does not mean that 1Man4All is
being referred to in Hebrews 1:8 or Matthew 28:19. Get it? Jesus is the
unique son of God (i.e. he is the son of God in a unique way, and that
is very clear from the Bible if you would just put your hatred aside
for a second and take an honest look).
> There will be no need to come up with seven propositions to
> explain Trinity.
"Son of God" is not, by itself, what gives rise to the doctrine of the
Trinity. As has been explained to you over and over again, what gives
rise to the Trinity is the fact that the Bible calls three distinct
persons God, but also states that there is only one God (and further
states that these three Persons who are each God can be referred to
with a single name).
> > Okay. Note, however, that I did not claim any of those verses by
> > themself constitute an explicity and full Trinitarian formula. My point
> > was that all those passages together form a doctrine like that of the
> > Trinity (multiple distinct beings who are God, yet there are not
> > multiple gods, but rather only one God).
>
> And my point was, why stop at these verses; why not also include verses
> where Jesus is simply called a man, a teacher or a prophet?
> Cumulatively, it may not all add up to Trinity.
If you have counter passages, bring them! That is relevant to the issue
of biblical consistency. I, personally, cannot think of any passages
which contradict the basic structure of the doctrine.
> > Okay, I agree completely that, in theory, it is possible to collect
> > coherent propositions, and yet the collection itself is logically
> > incoherent. But the 12 propositions collected above, in actuality, do
> > not form a logically incoherent set as far as I can see.
>
> And it's because you can't see that Godhead, God and Father are all
> one and the same thing.
The Godhead is God in a sense of identity. The Godhead is the Deity,
the One God. Whether or not the Father is identical to this entity is
another issue, though not a major one in my opinion (i.e. while Craig
denies that the Father is identical to the Godhead, the doctrine could
easily be tweaked with minor changes to incorporate this premise).
Denis Giron
on my part...
> Also related, as was noted about six months ago, I checked the book
> George Anton Kiraz, "Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels:
> Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions,"
> (E.J. Brill, 1996). This work provided three different ancient Syriac
> versions of this passage, which you can see in the following images...
>
> http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_sinaiticus.gif
>
> http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_harqlean.gif
>
> http://www.oopi.us/gifs/semitic-22-charset.gif
That third URL, obviously, is wrong. I mean to give the following:
http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_peshitta.gif
Those agre the three Syriac versions of John 20:28 offered in Kiraz'
book: The Peshitta, the Sinaiticus, and the Harqlean.
Denis Giron
on my part...
> Also related, as was noted about six months ago, I checked the book
> George Anton Kiraz, "Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels:
> Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions,"
> (E.J. Brill, 1996). This work provided three different ancient Syriac
> versions of this passage, which you can see in the following images...
>
> http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_sinaiticus.gif
>
> http://www.oopi.us/gifs/syriac_john20-28_harqlean.gif
>
> http://www.oopi.us/gifs/semitic-22-charset.gif
That third URL, obviously, is wrong. I mean to give the following:
1MAN4ALL
Briefly...
> > Specifically, how was the Trinity concept incoherent before Craig made
> Good question. To be fair, Craig does not make himself out to be the
I am skipping a lot but there are two ways to look at your argument:
EXHIBIT ONE
Let's call Jesus, God, but he is not really "God;" he is God-like.
Let's call Holy Ghost, God, but he is not really "God;" he is God-like.
EXHIBIT TWO
"God" is not a "Being" but an attribute, just as Rehman (Compassionate)
is an attribute of God in Islam. So, to simplify, let's not even use
the word "God" but use the word Compassionate.
Thus, from your perspective:
Jesus is compassionate.
Holy Ghost is compassionate
Father is compassionate
They are not identical to each other
Taken as a group, the group is called "Godhead"
So the fallacy in your argument is that whereas in Exhibit 1, you are
using God as an entity, in Exhibit 2, you are taking the word "God"
as an attribute. And that's where you fail.
> > > > If I understand you correctly, a "logical coherent" is one which is:
> > > > (a). Not self-contradictory, and
> > > > (b) That which is properly nonsensical.
> > > Does (b) contain a typo? I have mostly employed "logically coherent" in
> > > a way that is nearly identical to "logically consistent".
> > What does "logically" mean in your term "logically consistent,"
> > and consistent with what?
> Logically means pertaining to logic. It is an issue of logic.
I can quibble with that but let me move on to more important things.
> Logically consistent is an issue that comes up in logic. Are two
> propositions logically consistent? That means if we examine/analyze
> them within the context of formal language, do they fit the definition
> of consistent employed in formal logic?
> And consistent with what? With one another!
Consistency requires consistency in word meanings. But as far as your
argument is concerned, you are applying different meanings to the word
"God" [sometimes using it as an identity, other times as an
attribute] to create consistency which doesn't exist.
> > > However, in
> > > the above, I have also included the caveat that a logically coherent
> > > statement or doctrine not be properly nonsensical (i.e. it should at
> > > least have truth value!).
> > Well, any statement that is in the form of "X 'is' Y" can have
> > a truth value.
> It *can* have truth value, but what truth value we give it would depend
> on what those variables represent, and how we interpet the copula.
> > So what's the big deal here? Even before Craig,
> > Christianity claimed that Jesus is God. How is it "logically
> > incoherent?"
>
> "Jesus is God" by itself is not logically incoherent regardless of how
> we interpret the copula. However, the following propositions...
>
> (1) Jesus is God.
> (2) The Father is God.
> (3) Jesus is not the Father
>
> ...*seemed* logically incoherent (and indeed they are if the copula in
> every single proposition is one of identity). However, if the first two
> propositions employ a copula of predication, while the third employs
> one of identity, then the three propositions are logically coherent.
But why keep switching from identity to predication to identity? In the
first two propositions you reduced "God" to an attribute. But if
you consider that Father is identical to God in identity (no other
interpretation is possible in Christianity, because when Jesus used
the word "God" he meant a "being, not an attribute), your second
proposition will become:
The God is God.
And your third proposition will become:
Jesus is not the God
Which contradicts your first proposition.
> I just wanted to be clear. That was all. But yes, indeed, I do use
> logically coherent in such a way that is intimately related to logical
> consistency.
> > > Second, Jesus "praying to himself"? You are still thinking of modalism,
> > > and thus still don't understand the doctrine. Jesus is *NOT* identical
> > > to the Godhead, and *NOT* identical to the other persons. Therefore,
> > > when Jesus, in his humanity, prayed, in no way was he praying to
> > > himself.
> > Forget Godhead. Is Jesus God or not? Or, is Jesus a part-time God?
> The doctrine asserts that "Jesus is God," but as has been explained to
> you ad nauseum, this is a statement of predication. It is not stating
> that Jesus is a god by himself. It is stating that he possesses
> attributes of deity, that he is divine.
> As for "Godhead," that refers to the Deity. Remember the doctrine holds
> that there is only one God, that means one deity, and that deity (who
> is comprised of the three persons) is referred to as the Godhead. This
> too has been explained to you before.
In your first paragraph, you are using the word "God" as an
attribute (predication). In the second, you are using it as identity
statement. And because of this inconsistency, you are willing to claim
that your argument holds water. It doesn't.
> > > Third, "Fully God" in a sense of predication, as was noted previously,
> > > would be understood as "truly divine". It does not mean he is a deity
> > > or identical to the Godhead (just to be clear).
> > I think the confusion is being created by your use of different words
> > for God (Godhead, Father, Deity, the Divine etc). Let's just use ONLY
> > one word: God. Period.
> The different words are meant to help you understand what is going on.
> That is what helps the confusion evaporate. If you would actually try
> to understand the posts you are responding to, you would understand why
> the different words are employed (i.e. "God" is being used in multiple
> senses, as it is in the Bible).
Different words are used in the Bible for the same deity. Father is the
God. God is the Father. Let's suppose that you have two names: Beefus
and Butthead. Some people call you Beefus, some call you Butthead, and
some other people call you by both names. Now, whenever I feel like it,
I will call you Beefus while insisting that Butthead is simply your
attribute (since other people like Drahcir can be Butthead as well). It
just wouldn't be an acceptable argument because arbitrarily I have
taken an identity and turned it into an attribute for no good reason.
> As for the different notions of God, remember that a year ago you
> challenged me to put forth this doctrine employing set theoretical
> notation, and I did so here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/45579dd0991235bc
>
> Well, that post shows the different notions of "God" being employed
I didn't want to respond to it because it essentially has the same
flaw i.e. you are using names/symbols for God to avoid inconsistencies
and keep switching back and forth between identity and attributes.
> > Just to confirm, when you use the word "predication," do you mean
> > assigning attribute or do you mean having a truth-value (having a part
> > in a proposition that can be affirmed or denied)? I thought I had
> > understood you, but now I am not so sure anymore.
> Craig explained it nicely, and even you, some time ago, regurgitated
> the proper understanding back to me. A statement of predication is
> assigning an attribute. So, for example, "Cicero is Roman" is a
> statement of predication. If I state that it is also the case that
> "Aurelio is Roman" it does not follow that Cicero is therefore the same
> person as Aurelio. However, a statement of identity would be "Cicero is
> Tully," where those are two different names for the same individual.
I am not disagreeing. See my comments above.
I think we are repeating ourselves. So let me end here...
Denis Giron
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> I am skipping a lot but there are two ways to look at your argument:
>
> EXHIBIT ONE
>
> Let's call Jesus, God, but he is not really "God;" he is God-like.
> Let's call Holy Ghost, God, but he is not really "God;" he is God-like.
But that is not may argument. My argument is that, according to this
doctrine, Jesus reall is God. But when it is said "Jesus is God" a
statement of predication, not identity, is being made. That is to say
Jesus is divine, or in possession of the attributes of deity.
> EXHIBIT TWO
>
> "God" is not a "Being" but an attribute, just as Rehman (Compassionate)
> is an attribute of God in Islam. So, to simplify, let's not even use
> the word "God" but use the word Compassionate.
Had you paid attention to this discussion, you would know that God is a
being. The analogy which explains this has been given to you several
times: think of the word feline, and imagine a single feline existing,
which we can call the feline. A proper part of the feline can itself be
called feline in a sense of predication. That does not negate the fact
that the feline is a being.
> Thus, from your perspective:
>
> Jesus is compassionate.
> Holy Ghost is compassionate
> Father is compassionate
> They are not identical to each other
> Taken as a group, the group is called "Godhead"
That would be correct, but also from this doctrine each of the persons
are God in a sense of predication (i.e. proper parts of the Godhead,
possessing attributes of deity, and are divine).
> So the fallacy in your argument is that whereas in Exhibit 1, you are
> using God as an entity, in Exhibit 2, you are taking the word "God"
> as an attribute. And that's where you fail.
There is no failure, and there is no fallacy. You were told from the
beginning that the argument uses God in two different senses (and each
of these senses can be found in the Bible). There is God the entity,
which is the Godhead (or GOD, the Deity, et cetera). Then there is the
predicate God, which each of the Persons who are proper parts of the
Godhead instantiate. There is no fallacy. That is the same as saying
there is the entity The Feline, and then there are proper parts of the
The Feline which instantiate the predicate feline.
> > Logically consistent is an issue that comes up in logic. Are two
> > propositions logically consistent? That means if we examine/analyze
> > them within the context of formal language, do they fit the definition
> > of consistent employed in formal logic?
>
> > And consistent with what? With one another!
>
> Consistency requires consistency in word meanings. But as far as your
> argument is concerned, you are applying different meanings to the word
> "God" [sometimes using it as an identity, other times as an
> attribute] to create consistency which doesn't exist.
The question was whether the doctrine was logically coherent, and at
this point we reached the requirement within that question that the
doctrine be logically consistent. Indeed, the doctrine is logically
consistent. The fact that "God" is used in different senses was
explained from the very outset. This is nothing new, and there is
nothing fallacious about it.
> > "Jesus is God" by itself is not logically incoherent regardless of how
> > we interpret the copula. However, the following propositions...
> >
> > (1) Jesus is God.
> > (2) The Father is God.
> > (3) Jesus is not the Father
> >
> > ...*seemed* logically incoherent (and indeed they are if the copula in
> > every single proposition is one of identity). However, if the first two
> > propositions employ a copula of predication, while the third employs
> > one of identity, then the three propositions are logically coherent.
>
> But why keep switching from identity to predication to identity?
Again, all three statements are obvious from the Bible, but then the
question is how those statements might be consistent. John 1:1 provides
the answer (cf. Craig, Morris, and especially Raymon Brown's commentary
on John 1:1, as well Chysostom many centuries prior). And, again, how
one properly interprets the copula of a proposition "x is y" is a very
real part of the philosophy of language. So, for example, consider the
following propositions:
(1) Ice is H2O
(2) Water is H2O
(3) Ice is not water
This very example came up in Avrum Stroll's critique of Hilary Putnam's
notion of rigid designators. How does one interpret the copula in each
of those three statements? Which ones are employing a copula of
predication, and which ones are employing a copula of identity? This is
relevant because we believe all three statements above are true. But
how one answers the questions just asked will determine whether the
statements above are consistent or inconsistent. So too, Christians
believe the analogous statements made about Jesus, the Father, et
cetera, above, and Christian philosophers have grappled with the issue
of making those statements. Craig, among others, has succeeded in
making the relevant statements consistent (in other words, Craig's
version successfully answers the critiques of Cartwright, which were so
succinctly put forth by Imran Aijaz).
> In the first two propositions you reduced "God" to an attribute. But if
> you consider that Father is identical to God in identity (no other
> interpretation is possible in Christianity, because when Jesus used
> the word "God" he meant a "being, not an attribute), your second
> proposition will become:
>
> The God is God.
>
> And your third proposition will become:
>
> Jesus is not the God
>
> Which contradicts your first proposition.
Whether the Father is the Godhead, or a proper part of the Godhead, is
not a major issue for this discussion (because, as was said before,
while Craig holds the latter position, his version of the doctrine can
easily be tweaked, such that the Son and the Holy Spirit are proper
parts of the Father). That being said, dealing with the above, in no
way does "Jesus is not the God" contradict the statement "Jesus is God"
in the understanding of the doctrine. In fact, both these propositions
were explicitly stated in the following post (previously linked to and
discussed below) from June 29th, 2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/45579dd0991235bc
Proposition (6) explicitly states that Jesus is God (in a sense of
predication), while propositions (1) and (9) combine to explain that
Jesus is NOT the God (i.e. the Godhead).
> > The doctrine asserts that "Jesus is God," but as has been explained to
> > you ad nauseum, this is a statement of predication. It is not stating
> > that Jesus is a god by himself. It is stating that he possesses
> > attributes of deity, that he is divine.
>
> > As for "Godhead," that refers to the Deity. Remember the doctrine holds
> > that there is only one God, that means one deity, and that deity (who
> > is comprised of the three persons) is referred to as the Godhead. This
> > too has been explained to you before.
>
> In your first paragraph, you are using the word "God" as an
> attribute (predication).
Correct. And this is not new. This stretched well before this
conversation (see Raymond Brown's commentary on John 1:1, see Thomas V.
Morris' book "The Logic of God Incarnate," see Craig's debate with
Shabir Ally on this subject, et cetera).
> In the second, you are using it as identity statement.
In the second paragraph we use "God" in another sense, in short to
refer to the Godhead. Yes, this is not new.
> And because of this inconsistency, you are willing to claim
> that your argument holds water. It doesn't.
There is not inconsistency. From the jump, it was been noted that "God"
is employed in two different senses. There is the being who is God, the
God, the Godhead, the sole Deity in existence, et cetera. Then, there
are three persons who are God in a sense of predication. As has been
noted for well over a year now (possibly for two years, and well before
I ever go involved in this subject): this is not a violation of
language (e.g. we can sensibly form the same constructions with the
word feline), and these two senses are employed in the Bible itself.
> > The different words are meant to help you understand what is going on.
> > That is what helps the confusion evaporate. If you would actually try
> > to understand the posts you are responding to, you would understand why
> > the different words are employed (i.e. "God" is being used in multiple
> > senses, as it is in the Bible).
>
> Different words are used in the Bible for the same deity.
Okay, but that is not what I'm referring to. See John 1:1, where there
is a reference made to God (i.e. the Godhead), yet separate from that,
a being who is not that being (i.e. not identical to the Godhead), i.e.
Jesus, is called God (and is called such in a sense of predication).
Regarding John 1:1, Raymond Brown wrote the following:
Since Chrysostom's time, commentators have recognized that each of the
three uses of "was" in vs. 1 has a different connotation: existence,
relationship, and predication respectively.
[SOURCE: Raymond E. Brown (ed.), "The Gospel According to John,"
(Doubleday, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 4]
Daniel B. Wallace took this explanation even further when he wrote
following regarding the origina Greek text:
When a predicative nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue
of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John
1:1c.[...] That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ
has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article
tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is
beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse
theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the
lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against
Arianism.
[SOURCE: Wallace, in William D. Mounce, "Basics of Biblical Greek
Grammar: Second Edition," (Zondervan, 2003), pp. 27-28.]
So, again, John 1:1 employs "God" in two different senses. One sense
refers to the being GOD, the God, the Godhead, the Deity. The other
sense is a predication which Jesus bares.
> Father is the God. God is the Father.
A reasonable interpretation.
> Let's suppose that you have two names: Beefus
> and Butthead. Some people call you Beefus, some call you
> Butthead, and some other people call you by both names.
If a single individual has two names, then those are not two distinct
persons, but rather a single person. Keep in mind that the doctrine of
the Trinity holds that Jesus is a distinct person from the Father
(otherwise we run into Modalism, AKA Sabellianism).
> Now, whenever I feel like it, I will call you Beefus while insisting that
> Butthead is simply your attribute (since other people like Drahcir can
> be Butthead as well). It just wouldn't be an acceptable argument
> because arbitrarily I have taken an identity and turned it into an
> attribute for no good reason.
I don't see your point. If you were to explain what it meant to be
"butthead" in a sense of predication (e.g. perhaps it means being rude,
being a jerk, instantiating stupidity, et cetera), there would be no
logical fallacy in saying that two distinct persons (e.g. Drahcir and
myself) bare that predicate.
> > As for the different notions of God, remember that a year ago you
> > challenged me to put forth this doctrine employing set theoretical
> > notation, and I did so here:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/45579dd0991235bc
> >
> > Well, that post shows the different notions of "God" being employed
>
> I didn't want to respond to it because it essentially has the same
> flaw i.e. you are using names/symbols for God to avoid inconsistencies
> and keep switching back and forth between identity and attributes.
Again, the differing notions of "God" being employed do not violate any
rules of language or logic (cf. the feline analogy), and they are both
employed in the Bible itself (cf. John 1:1).
> > > Just to confirm, when you use the word "predication," do you mean
> > > assigning attribute or do you mean having a truth-value (having a part
> > > in a proposition that can be affirmed or denied)? I thought I had
> > > understood you, but now I am not so sure anymore.
>
> > Craig explained it nicely, and even you, some time ago, regurgitated
> > the proper understanding back to me. A statement of predication is
> > assigning an attribute. So, for example, "Cicero is Roman" is a
> > statement of predication. If I state that it is also the case that
> > "Aurelio is Roman" it does not follow that Cicero is therefore the same
> > person as Aurelio. However, a statement of identity would be "Cicero is
> > Tully," where those are two different names for the same individual.
>
> I am not disagreeing. See my comments above.
Your comments above did not create any problems for anything I have
said in this discussion.
> I think we are repeating ourselves. So let me end here...
Indeed we have been repeating ourselves a great deal, but a lot of that
has to do with your unwillingness (or inability) to understand the
argument, as well as with you forgetting past topics already covered.
Also, I noticed you avoided further discussion on the Biblical passages
which clearly describe Jesus as God.
derrick_a...@yahoo.com
I have been thinking about the coupla argument for my own purposes
(mainly in response to a paper by Christoph Heger). However, here is an
interesting response to Craig's (and Moreland's) argument. Let me know
what you all think:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~howardd/trinitymonotheismpc.pdf
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
man06
son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient
of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory
and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not
pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Daniel
7:13-14
The verse does not say "worship," it says "serve." "Worship" is a
mistranslation.
The "Son of Man" in this Daniel passage is not God. The Jewish Messiah
is not God. He is a human king. An heir to the throne of David who will
usher in a "Messianic Age" which includes the restoration of the
kingdom of Israel and the Temple among other things (none of which
involve dying, being resurrected or redeeming anyone's sins). The OT
Messiah is just a human king. The fact that Daniel called him a "son of
Adam" (i.e a "human being") is a de facto statement that the Messiah is
not God.
there is a current discussion going on about jesus claiming to be a man
god.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177938&page=3
WILL denis giron post at iidb?
Denis Giron
man06 wrote:
>
> there is a current discussion going on about jesus claiming to be a man
> god.
>
> http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177938&page=3
>
> WILL denis giron post at iidb?
Why not invite others to post to usenet (e.g. SRC)? Anyway, while I
don't frequent the IIDB forums, I just posted a contribution to the
thread here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3734513#post3734513
Denis Giron
ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/27d20f736a82d51f
Apologies for not responding. I was not aware of it until Man06 raised
up the thread.
On 7 Aug 2006 14:02:49 -0700, derrick_a...@yahoo.com wrote in
message <1154984569.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Indeed that is a very good article and I have not given it much thought
for the last year but it is a powerful and worthwhile critique that
takes some effort to flesh out (perhaps it requires more effort than I
have the energy for, or maybe it requires more erudition in the realm
of philosophy than I possess at this time). I don't have any major
comments of substance to make on the article at this time. But I would
like to share an e-mail exchange with Dr. Howard-Snyder I had about a
year ago which dealt with at least one very minor portion. It may allow
us to, at least, conclude that the fifth premise in the syllogism in
his 18th foot-note is not really such a hard and fast rule (thus at
least one crucial part of one specific argument may be weakened).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Denis Giron
Subject: Composition and identity (regarding your article on Trinity
Monotheism)
To: Daniel Howard-Snyder
Greetings Dr. Howard-Snyder
I am sure you are a busy man, so I apologize for e-mailing you, but I
was reading your article on Trinity monotheism in the 2003 issue of the
journal "Philosophia Christi" and wanted to ask a question.
Footnote 18 on page 384 involved a portion that I didn't quite
understand. Referring specifically to the fifth proposition
("Necessarily, for any ps and for any thing x, if the ps compose x,
then x is not absolutely identical with the ps."), I don't understand
why this is the case. If I understand this correctly, you're stating as
a rule that an object is, necessarily, not identical to its collection
of parts in toto. Is that right? If so, why is this the case?
Unfortunately, my education in philosophy does not extend beyond the
undergraduate level, so maybe you could recommend some books I could
explore to get a handle on this rule?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
-Denis Giron
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:51:08 -0700
Subject: RE: Composition and identity (regarding your article on
Trinity Monotheism)
From: Dan Howard-Snyder
To: Denis Giron
Dear Denis Giron,
I didn't state as a rule that "an object is, necessarily, not identical
to its collection of parts in toto". In fact, I didn't state this at
all. Notice that in your formulation, you have two singular referring
expressions, 'object' and 'collection of parts'. In my formulation,
there is one singular referring _expression, 'x', and one plural
referring _expression, 'the ps'. You need to distinguish the ps and the
item that is composed by the ps. x may well be absolutely numerically
identical with the composite of ps, under certain conditions. The
principle I enunciated didn't deny that.
All the best,
DanHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Denis Giron
Subject: RE: Composition and identity (regarding your article on
Trinity Monotheism)
To: Dan Howard-Snyder
Greetings Dr. Howard-Snyder
Thank you very much for your response. I apologize if my uncareful
language misrepresented what you wrote (the paraphrasing was merely my
attempt at understanding what you wrote). Maybe where I am lost is with
regard to "absolutely identical"? Is the reason that, necessarily, x is
not identical to ps is because x is a single object while the ps are
several objects? Or is there some other reason? My original question
was meant to be a plea for help with regard to understanding why the
fifth proposition of footnote 18 (of the respective article) is true.
Thank you very much.
-Denis Giron
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Composition and identity (regarding your article on
Trinity Monotheism)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:43:51 -0700
From:Dan Howard-Snyder
To: Denis Giron
Dear Denis,
Yes, that's the point. Having said that, some philosophers in contexts
independent of trinitarian discussion seem to be taking seriously the
suggestion that absolute identity is a relation that can hold between
one and many. Donald Baxter, at UConn, and Meg Wallace, at UNC Chapel
Hill, have recently been exploring this line.
As for why you might think that it's not possible for one to be
absolutely numerically identical with many, think of Leibniz's Law, an
axiom in the logic of absolute identity. According to LL, for any x and
y, if x = y, then x and y share all and only the same properties. If x
is a single object and the ps are many objects, then the former will
have formal properties the latter lack, e.g. the property of being a
single object, being numerically identical with a single object, etc.
All the best,
DanHS