Dale Tuggy floats an argument in his debate with Rob Bowman which has been criticized by a Trinitarian philosophical blogger named "Brandon." It goes thus:
1) The Father and the Son are the same God.
2) For any x and y, and for any kind F, if x and y are the same F, then x is an F, y is an F, and x = y. (x and y are numerically one)
3) The Father = the Son. (1, 2)
However, Brandon says 2) is "false" or begs the question (a logical fallacy) since it possibly contains an "equivocal" middle term or makes (unwarranted) assumptions. A middle term appears in the major and minor premise of an argument/syllogism, but does not appear in the conclusion of the argument.
He then provides a complicated "rebuttal" which amounts to (IMO) "we can't refute the Trinity doctrine by reasoning Dale Tuggy's way."
I'm not sure if Tuggy's argument goes through as it stands, but I've tried to construct a parallel version that is not susceptible to Brandon's criticism. Maybe:
1) Brahma and Vishnu are the same God.
2) For any x and y, and for any kind F, if x and y are the same F, then x is an F, y is an F, and x = y. (x and y are numerically one).
3) Brahma = Vishnu.
Hi Edgar,
ReplyDeleteEven though this looks to be a slight twist on the indiscernibility of identicals, I don’t see anything obviously wrong with the reasoning. For instance:
For any Edgar and Nathan, and for any man, if Edgar and Nathan are the same man, then Edgar is Nathan, Nathan is Edgar, and Edgar just is Nathan.
I don’t think the above is really in dispute (except for the fact that you’re a better man than me). If we can substitute any substantive for x and y and any type for F while maintaining the argument’s plausibility, why think that it would not work for Father, Son, and God (Jn. 17:3)? Surely to surmise otherwise is to make an exception for reasons other than logic alone? Really, this just seems to smack of special pleading.
Yb,
Nathan
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI won't argue who is the better man when it comes to you and me, but I'll just say you're being too kind here. :)
Seriously, the stakes involved here likely cause Brandon to take issue with Tuggy's premises. I'll link to Brandon's website so that you and other readers can evaluate Brandon's argument without my commentary. Like you say, I'm inclined to see the premises as not all that controversial unless the parties are the Father and the Son.
Please see http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-same-f.html
Yb,
Edgar