As a non-Christian, you have no standing to address this issue. — T Clark

The fact that you have is a sign of the religious bigotry endemic here on the forum. — T Clark

Let’s look at a question where your opinion might matter more — T Clark

Can Santa Claus beat up Batman? — T Clark

Is Jesus God? — Arcane Sandwich

Can Santa Claus beat up Batman?
— T Clark

Nope, I think it's the other way around.
Batman can quite clearly whoop Santa Claus' ass. — Arcane Sandwich

Insofar as "God" and "Jesus" are fictions, yes or no depending on each author (make-believer). — 180 Proof

Can Santa Claus beat up Batman?
— T Clark

Nope, I think it's the other way around.
Batman can quite clearly whoop Santa Claus' ass. — Arcane Sandwich

:strong: :lol: — 180 Proof

So, I take it that you accept the non-Christian argument, and you reject the Christian argument. And it seems that you deny the second premise, FTI2 — Arcane Sandwich

It is therefore in the interest of Christian philosophers to argue that God and Jesus are indeed identical. — Arcane Sandwich

There were Christian sects that didn't believe that Jesus was God, the Arians, for instance. — frank

There are Christians today who don't think Jesus is divine, like the Jehovah's Witnesses. — frank

So it's a sectarian issue, not a philosophical one. — frank

What do you mean by "standing"? And why wouldn't I be able to talk about it? — Arcane Sandwich

What is it about me or my post that makes me a religious bigot, in your view? — Arcane Sandwich

It's Philosophy of Religion. — Arcane Sandwich

Who is a Christian who makes such an argument? The Trinity is usually said to be a revealed truth, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that Jesus being God is anything but a revealed truth (i.e. not something demonstrable from reason of from general evidence). — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, the argument would instead be something like:
P1: The Bible and traditions of the Church and its saints are revealed truth.
P2: The Bible and the traditions say Jesus is God.
C: Therefore, Jesus is God.

Straightforward enough. P2 is clearly true, so people who disagree will almost always disagree with P1. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, it isn't. — frank

It's a theological issue related to fact that some early Christians were Neoplatonists. — frank

It's Philosophy of Religion. — Arcane Sandwich

"Standing" is a legal term that I've shanghaied for use here - "Standing, or locus standi , is the capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit in court. To have standing, a party must demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action being challenged." Basically, it means you've got no horse in this race. — T Clark

Your opinion is irrelevant. — T Clark

I didn't say you are a bigot, I said your post is bigoted. When I was a Boy Scout I learned the Scout Law - A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. The explanation for "reverent" is "A scout is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion." As an atheist, you have no religious duties that I know of, but that doesn't change the requirement that you respect others convictions. — T Clark

This is a virtue that is rarely practiced here on the forum - just one example of the rampant religious bigotry here. — T Clark

No, it isn't. It's a theological issue. — frank

But I do indeed have a horse in this race, since I accept the non-Christian argument and I deny the Christian one. — Arcane Sandwich

This is such baloney. You just like to rouse the rabble. Bad philosophy. Nuff said. — T Clark

Issues in Philosophy of Religion and issues in theology are not mutually exclusive, at least not necessarily. Can you prove that they are? — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not inclined to debate the issue. — frank

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate. — Wikipedia

Conversely, it's not possible to reject both arguments at the same time. If you reject one of them, then that means that you accept the other one (again, unless you embrace paraconsistent logic, or some other logic in which contradictions are true). — Arcane Sandwich

(FTI1) If God exists, then God is identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

(ATI1) If God does not exist, then God is not identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

Doesn't matter, the arguments have been stated in the OP, by yours truly, if no one else. As such, they can be accepted or rejected, on whichever grounds you choose.

I'd deny P1, sure. But the denial of P2 is a live option. Perhaps the Bible and the traditions don't say that Jesus is God, at least not literally. Perhaps only metaphorically. But this would be to my point on literalism: things can't be metaphors all the way down.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

Hmm, well I think P1 would be the potential issue. Is "Jesus" referring to the Son/Logos or the Incarnation? It does not seem that the Incarnation should be necessary. Likewise, God's essence would not be defined by God's immanent acts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Something about that doesn't seem right to me -- couldn't we reject both arguments on the basis that

(FTI1) If God exists, then God is identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

(ATI1) If God does not exist, then God is not identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich


Could both be false? — Moliere

What God is identical to isn't the same thing as whether or not God exists, even treating it as a first-order predicate. So we could deny the implication as true in either case, saying that the existential predicate has no relation to the identity relationship. (or, perhaps, that the existential predicate is actually quantification, and the identity of something is different from quantification) — Moliere

I'd be more inclined to say that "In the Christian Religion God is identical to Jesus", or something along those lines, so as to avoid mixing up description or identity with existence. — Moliere

Afaik, philosophy of religion examines concepts of religion (re: worship) in contrast to theology which speculates on the nature of god (re: transcendence); where these inquiries possibly converge or overlap is on implications for human existence (e.g. values). — 180 Proof

Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the broader philosophical task of reflecting on matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos (e.g., the laws of nature, the emergence of consciousness) and of historical events (e.g., the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, the Holocaust). Philosophy of religion also includes the investigation and assessment of worldviews (such as secular naturalism) that are alternatives to religious worldviews. Philosophy of religion involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, value theory (including moral theory and applied ethics), philosophy of language, science, history, politics, art, and so on. Section 1 offers an overview of the field and its significance, with subsequent sections covering developments in the field since the mid-twentieth century. These sections address philosophy of religion as practiced primarily (but not exclusively) in departments of philosophy and religious studies that are in the broadly analytic tradition. The entry gives significant attention to theism, but it concludes with highlighting the increasing breadth of the field, as more traditions outside the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have become the focus of important philosophical work. — SEP home page Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.