I am a Catholic. I love God, as Father, Jesus and their Holy Spirit.

But I am sure I won't be able to convince anyone about Jesus or God through argument.

You don't seem to understand what an argument is. — Arcane Sandwich

Way hot out of the gate. I didn't mean to insult you. Your argument basically just gave a definition "God is identical to Jesus." You don't move anywhere from that. You asserted that God exists, and asserted that God is identical to Jesus. Nothing else was operating in the argument to move from the assertions to some other conclusion. You basically just said "God is Jesus." So I said, that's not an argument.

Again, I love how people think about these things and post here. I'm not trying to discourage anything. But if you want a good conversation, on this forum, God is very often a non-starter.

Philosophers have a problem clarifying whether a cat on a matt is really two things, or a thing at all.
— Fire Ologist

I don't have that problem. It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that I do. — Arcane Sandwich

I assume all people have this problem because it's the same conversation Heraclitus and Parmenides and Hume and Descartes and Hegel, and Kant, and Nietzsche and Quine, and people here today have been trying to address.

You jump way to hard and fast into the personal. I do that too sometimes. Always regret it. And what do you want me to say?

So what does that have to do with the thesis that either Jesus is God or Jesus is not God? — Arcane Sandwich

Well, first you have to show God, or else Jesus won't have the possibility of being God.

I am sure I won't be able to convince anyone about Jesus or God through argument. — Fire Ologist

I'm not seeking to convince anyone of anything. You would do well to assume less about other people, if you believe in Christian virtues as much as you suggest that you do.

Way hot out of the gate. — Fire Ologist

Well, if you can't take the heat, you're under no obligation to stay in the kitchen.

I didn't mean to insult you. — Fire Ologist

I don't care if you meant to insult me or not. We're trying to do a bit of logic here, and logic is a formal science.

Your argument basically just gave a definition "God is identical to Jesus." You don't move anywhere from that. You asserted that God exists, and asserted that God is identical to Jesus. Nothing else was operating in the argument to move from the assertions to some other conclusion. You basically just said "God is Jesus." So I said, that's not an argument. — Fire Ologist

Understand that both of my arguments have the structure of a modus ponens. That is what makes them arguments. You can keep digging your heels in and saying that they're not arguments, even though they are. I'll spell it out for you:

1) If p, then q.
2) p.
3) Therefore, q.

That is indeed an argument.

Again, I love how people think about these things and post here. I'm not trying to discourage anything. But if you want a good conversation, on this forum, God is very often a non-starter. — Fire Ologist

I don't care if God is a non-starter or not, as far as topics of conversation go. Would you tell a mathematician that God is a non-starter if said person claimed that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit should be counted using the number 3?

I assume all people have this problem — Fire Ologist

Well, there's your problem.

it's the same conversation Heraclitus and Parmenides and Hume and Descartes and Hegel, and Kant, and Nietzsche and Quine, and people here today have been trying to address. — Fire Ologist

The OP of this thread has nothing to do with those philosophers.

You jump way to hard and fast into the personal. — Fire Ologist

In which comment, and in what way, did I jump into the personal? Consider the fact that, throughout this thread, I've already been accused of:

1) Religious bigotry
2) Disrespect
3) Sectarianism
4) Toying with others
5) Amusing myself
6) Straw-manning
7) Uselessness

Etc. With that in mind, I believe I've been quite tolerant, given that my reaction to all of the above was simply to deny such charges and to ask for further elaborations from my accusers. Some of them didn't even have the good grace, or the basic decency, to recognize that their accusations didn't hold up under scrutiny.

And what do you want me to say? — Fire Ologist

Say whatever you want. I'll probably say something back. It depends on what you say. Such is the nature of a dialogue.

Well, first you have to show God, or else Jesus won't have the possibility of being God. — PoeticUniverse

Is there a specific premise that you're denying, or do I have to do the work for you in that sense?

1) If p, then q.
2) p.
3) Therefore, q. — Arcane Sandwich

So do you want to talk about logic, or about whether Jesus is God?

If you want to talk about logic, you could have said many other things for “p” and “q.” But since you said God and Jesus I assumed you wanted to talk about God.

If you want to talk about logic, then sure “if unicorns exist, that single-horned horse is equal to a unicorn; that single-horned horse exists; therefore, unicorns exist.”

But if you were trying to show what it who God or Jesus actually is, you didn’t argue them, you merely asserted and equated them, like I just did with a single-horned horse and a unicorn.

So do you want to talk about logic, or about whether Jesus is God?

If you want to talk about logic, you could have said many other things for “p” and “q.” But since you said God and Jesus I assumed you wanted to talk about God. — Fire Ologist

So when Anselm offers his logical proof for the existence of God, does he want to talk about logic or God, in your view?

If you want to talk about logic, then sure “if unicorns exist, that single-horned horse is equal to a unicorn; that single-horned horse exists; therefore, unicorns exist.” — Fire Ologist

No, that's a fallacy. Here is what you're saying:

1) if unicorns exist, that single-horned horse is equal to a unicorn
2) that single-horned horse exists
3) therefore, unicorns exist.

And here is its structure:

1) If p, then q
2) q
3) Therefore, p

That's not an argument, that's a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent.

So I stand by what I said earlier: you don't seem to understand what an argument is. I say that as objectively and as respectfully as possible.

But if you were trying to show what it who God or Jesus actually is, you didn’t argue them, you merely asserted and equated them, like I just did with a single-horned horse and a unicorn. — Fire Ologist

Not quite, because what I offered has the structure of a modus ponens, while your example is a formal fallacy.

1) if unicorns exist, that single-horned horse is equal to a unicorn
2) that single-horned horse exists
3) therefore, unicorns exist.

And here is its structure:

1) If p, then q
2) q
3) Therefore, p

That's not an argument, that's a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent.

So I stand by what I said earlier: you don't seem to understand what an argument is. I say that as objectively and as respectfully as possible. — Arcane Sandwich

You are right.

I wasn’t careful enough and my unicorn “argument” fails.

That’s twice you said I don’t know what an argument is. Do you really think that? I mean, if I didn’t know what an argument was, how could I recognize that you are right about affirming the consequent, and I was wrong to try to equate that to your modus ponens form of argument?

Anyway, it seems like you are talking about logic and not about God or Jesus.

Anselm was trying to show how it can be rationally concluded that God exists. He was using logic to show an ontology. I love the effort, but all analysis of his arguments are discussions of logic, not about God. Like this discussion seems to be. Anselm would admit the proof for God’s existence may be interesting to us, but is not about God.

I don’t think you can use logic to demonstrate an ontology (except to yourself about yourself, as in “I conclude I exist in that act of concluding anything, or in sloppy logical form “I think, therefore, I am.”, and who else cares, or can confirm I’m right.)

Do you think you can conclude Jesus is God because of your argument?

If I was trying to rationally prove to you that my father exists, do you think you would know anything about my father?

So does this thread really have anything to do with God? Or Jesus?

if I didn’t know what an argument was, how could I recognize that you are right about affirming the consequent — Fire Ologist

Because technically speaking, I'm not right. It's an instance of affirming the consequent if we read your example in a charitable way. If we instead read it literally, then it's another type of formal fallacy, a non sequitur, to be more precise. The structure of your example is actually the following one:

1) If p, then q
2) r
3) Therefore, p.

Do you really think that? — Fire Ologist

Who cares what I think? My thoughts (about anything) shouldn't matter to you, in any way.

Anselm was trying to show how it can be rationally concluded that God exists. — Fire Ologist

I'm showing how it can be rationally concluded that Jesus is God, and in another argument, I'm showing how it can be rationally concluded that Jesus is not God. Both arguments are valid. But they can't both be sound (though both of them can be unsound).

I love the effort, but all analysis of his arguments are discussions of logic, not about God. — Fire Ologist

So if I tell you that three apples plus two apples equals five apples, am I talking about numbers or apples?

Do you think you can conclude Jesus is God because of your argument? — Fire Ologist

I already concluded it, in my Christian argument. And I already concluded that Jesus is not God, in my non-Christian argument. They can't both be sound. One of them must be unsound, if not both.

If I was trying to rationally prove to you that my father exists, do you think you would know anything about my father? — Fire Ologist

Please explain how that is relevant.

So does this thread really have anything to do with God? Or Jesus? — Fire Ologist

Of course it does.

So if I tell you that three apples plus two apples equals five apples, am I talking about numbers or apples? — Arcane Sandwich

Are you talking to tell me we have enough apples to feed five people who want apples to eat, or are you demonstrating math? If math, you don’t need to use apples. You could use rocks, or Gods to form your argument, so you are not talking about apples at all. If five people want to eat, then the apples may be of interest.

I'm showing how it can be rationally concluded that Jesus is God, … — Arcane Sandwich

No, you just assert it as a premise - “Jesus is identical to God.”

You said “if God exists, Jesus is identical to God.”

You could have said “if apples exist, Jesus is identical to God.” There is no logical connection between God existing and zGod being identical to Jesus. You just define God as identical to Jesus, create a condition “if God exists” then assert this condition is met and restate your definition. Great logical form - wholly unconvincing of what God or Jesus means or whether anyone should entertain whether God or Jesus exists.

If unicorns exist, unicorns are identical with single horned horses.
Unicorns exist.
Therefore unicorns are identical with single horned horses.

I think I have the modus ponens right here. But have I said anything at all about reality, about horses, about horns, about unicorns? Why would replacing unicorns with God, and single horned horse with Jesus would I think I’ve proven anything about anything, except how modus ponens works?

Are you talking to tell me we have enough apples to feed five people who want apples to eat, or are you demonstrating math? If math, you don’t need to use apples. You could use rocks, or Gods to form your argument, so you are not talking about apples at all. If five people want to eat, then the apples may be of interest. — Fire Ologist

Has it occurred to you that math and logic are sciences (or tools, if you prefer) that we use to talk about anything that we want, including apples as well as God? Shorter: it's not an either/or type of deal.

No, you just assert it as a premise - “Jesus is identical to God.” — Fire Ologist

False. I didn't assert it as a premise. I concluded it.

You said “if God exists, Jesus is identical to God.” — Fire Ologist

Which, being a conditional statement ("if p, then q") is not the same thing as asserting that Jesus is identical to God ("q", from "if p, then q" and "p"). Now I'm beginning to wonder if you know what a proposition is.

You could have said “if apples exist, Jesus is identical to God.” There is no logical connection between God existing and zGod being identical to Jesus. You just define God as identical to Jesus, create a condition “if God exists” then assert this condition is met and restate your definition. Great logical form - wholly unconvincing of what God or Jesus means or whether anyone should entertain whether God or Jesus exists. — Fire Ologist

It is indeed a great logical form, it's called modus ponens. It has nothing to do with convincing anyone of anything, because the concept of convincing is foreign to the formal sciences.

If unicorns exist, unicorns are identical with single horned horses.
Unicorns exist.
Therefore unicorns are identical with single horned horses.

I think I have the modus ponens right here. — Fire Ologist

Indeed you do. And it's an easy argument to reject. I'll simply deny the second premise. So, your argument, while valid, is unsound. And that means that it fails. My Christian argument, by contrast, cannot be rejected as easily as yours. Why not? Because no one would argue for your second premise, while there are indeed philosophers that argue for the second premise of my Christian argument, such as Anselm and Aquinas.

But have I said anything at all about reality, about horses, about horns, about unicorns? Why would replacing unicorns with God, and single horned horse with Jesus would I think I’ve proven anything about anything, except how modus ponens works? — Fire Ologist

You still don't get it.

You still don't get it. — Arcane Sandwich

So you are saying if we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

Got it.

If you want to talk about logical form, why bring up such a distraction as “God” and “Jesus” to do it?

If you are trying to talk about God and Jesus it looks to me you are saying that because God exists, God is Jesus, but God doesn’t exist.

Your point is you have no point, like speaking with me, someone who just doesn’t get it. I’m sensing a pattern.

You still don't get it. — Arcane Sandwich


So you are saying if we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

Got it. — Fire Ologist

When did I say that?

If you want to talk about logical form, why bring up such a distraction as “God” and “Jesus” to do it? — Fire Ologist

Here's my reply to that question:

it's not an either/or type of deal. — Arcane Sandwich

If you are trying to talk about God and Jesus it looks to me you are saying that because God exists, God is Jesus, but God doesn’t exist. — Fire Ologist

That sounds like nonsense to me, what you just said there. Could you elaborate on that point, specifically?

Your point is you have no point, like speaking with me, someone who just doesn’t get it. I’m sensing a pattern. — Fire Ologist

Is that like sixth sense?

If you are trying to talk about God and Jesus it looks to me you are saying that because God exists, God is Jesus, but God doesn’t exist.
— Fire Ologist

That sounds like nonsense to me, what you just said there. Could you elaborate on that point, specifically? — Arcane Sandwich

Me too.

You made your argument, then you say you deny the second premise because you are atheist.

So, in summation, you are saying if God exists, God is Jesus, but God doesn’t exist.

Which gets everyone as far as Larry Fine did when he was suggesting a breakfast menu.

So, to me, I’m having a conversation about logic using the terms God and Jesus with someone who could care less about what those terms mean because they don't mean anything that exists anyway. And the logical stuff is neat but, like math, is what it is and is not really that interesting, certainly not as interesting as God, if God existed. Or Jesus if he was identical to God.

Can you summarize your point again to see if this conversation can really go any further? Not my point (I don’t know what an argument is) - what is your point about Jesus again?

Can you summarize your point again to see if this conversation can really go any further? Not my point (I don’t know what an argument is) - what is your point about Jesus again? — Fire Ologist

I find it odd that Christian philosophers only offer arguments for the conclusion that God exists, while not offering any arguments for the conclusion that Jesus is God. Why would you resort to logic in the former case but not the latter? Is there any reason that warrants this differential treatment? — Arcane Sandwich

Cool. Honest question.

Honest answer.

I don’t like any of the arguments for the existence of God. They all hit me as if they are rigging the conclusion by rigging the premises. They all contain elements that need not be accepted and so the conclusion that God exists need not be accepted and so it’s no proof for the existence of God.

Logical proof operates on metaphysics and epistemology. It’s about proving things that exist, or ontological entities exist; nothing can prove something else exists. Ontological objects are used to demonstrate metaphysical and epistemological proofs. It’s doesn’t work the other way. Sorry folks, faith and the grace of divine revelation are the only basis for the assertion that God exists.

So a further proof about Jesus being God - that would come after one asserted that God exists (based on faith), and then be a theological conversation where the additional premises would come from the Bible and the Church and one’s own experiences with other people. None of that conversation would be philosophic or scientifically measurable. Jesus is God because he said “I and the Father are one.” What use is that to a scientist as evidence for anything?

So basically, I should never have wasted your time if you, like Anselm, think we can discuss proofs of the existence of God and by extension, the nature of Jesus from logic.

I don’t like any of the arguments for the existence of God. They all hit me as if they are rigging the conclusion by rigging the premises. They all contain elements that need not be accepted and so the conclusion that God exists need not be accepted and so it’s no proof for the existence of God. — Fire Ologist

Then your quarrel is not with me, it's with Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, and other philosophers that have offered logical proofs for the existence of God.

Sorry folks, faith and the grace of divine revelation are the only basis for the assertion that God exists. — Fire Ologist

Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, and others would disagree with that statement. For Aquinas specifically, reason and faith are harmonious, not mutually exclusive.

So basically, I should never have wasted your time if you, like Anselm, think we can discuss proofs of the existence of God and by extension, the nature of Jesus from logic. — Fire Ologist

You're not wasting my time. You're saying some things, and I'm saying some things in response.

Perhaps you'll find the following somewhat useful for assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of the OP:

The way I see it, the "problem" (if it can be called that) with Anselm's argument is that it's too generic: it doesn't manage to conclude that God is Jesus Christ, and this is exactly what I would expect from a Christian philosopher. In other words, proving that God exists is only half of the problem. The other half is proving that God is Christ.

For example, a Muslim philosopher wouldn't try to refute Anselm's argument. Why would he? He believes in God just as much as Anselm does. It that sense, he would accept the argument in question. And so would a Jewish philosopher, and so would a monotheist Pagan philosopher.

If we don't specify who God is (Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, the Rainbow Serpent, etc.) then every theist can accept Anselm's argument, no matter what the details of their religion are. — Arcane Sandwich

For example, a Muslim philosopher wouldn't try to refute Anselm's argument. Why would he? He believes in God just as much as Anselm does. It that sense, he would accept the argument in question. And so would a Jewish philosopher, and so would a monotheist Pagan philosopher.

If we don't specify who God is (Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, the Rainbow Serpent, etc.) then every theist can accept Anselm's argument, no matter what the details of their religion are. — Arcane Sandwich

Why is that a problem? For anyone who believes in God? Why would a Christian philosopher who believed they could prove the existence of God fall short if they didn’t show that the God they allegedly proved existed was named Jesus?

Aquinas called all of his writings straw. I would be happy to argue with Descartes and Anselm about the shortcomings of their arguments.

Although, I find the God of all the philosophers to be a hollow shell of a stick figure on a blackboard used to fill in a “x” in some attempt at a logical proposition. Maybe if they could take it far enough to give it some real flesh, as a proof that God who is Jesus exists, maybe I’d see God there at all for once.

I agree reason and faith are harmonious. A theologian is using reason. The theologian just has things like God and angels and sin and free agents as objects at his or her disposal.

But in philosophy proper, in the world based on observation, sensation, empirical evidence, the world of science, when we apply reasoning, I have never been impressed about arguments that demonstrate God’s existence is necessary.

Why is that a problem? For anyone who believes in God? Why would a Christian philosopher who believed they could prove the existence of God fall short if they didn’t show that the God they allegedly proved existed was named Jesus? — Fire Ologist

Speaking in general, if you can't prove that God is Jesus Christ, then you're not a Christian philosopher, you're just a philosopher who happens to be a Christian. The same goes for other faiths. If you can't prove that God is Allah, then you're not an Islamic philosopher, you're just a philosopher that happens to be a Muslim.

Aquinas called all of his writings straw. I would be happy to argue with Descartes and Anselm about the shortcomings of their arguments. — Fire Ologist

So would I, but I would do so while recognizing their merits at the same time. For all I know, they are not necessarily wrong in their attempt to prove, using logic, that God exists.

Although, I find the God of all the philosophers to be a hollow shell of a stick figure on a blackboard used to fill in a “x” in some attempt at a logical proposition. Maybe if they could take it far enough to give it some real flesh, as a proof that God who is Jesus exists, maybe I’d see God there at all for once. — Fire Ologist

I've had religious experiences under the influence of psychoactive drugs. I've already said my piece about this a while back in this thread.

I have never been impressed about arguments that demonstrate God’s existence is necessary. — Fire Ologist

It's not logic's business to impress anyone, just as it's not math's business to impress anyone.

I've had religious experiences under the influence of psychoactive drugs — Arcane Sandwich

OK, time for some serious Bible study classes that I have given and written up, ha, ha:

You're perfectly reasonable to reject both ATI1 and FTI1. Rejecting a premise does not require you to have a counterproof, as the truth table response offered implies.

To invoke truth tables when discussing premises is mixing up logical theory with logical semantics.
Truth tables tell us about the semantic model we are considering, which in this case is the actual world we live in.
Whereas premises relate to a proof, which is an object of theory, not semantics.
In the context of reasoning about the actual world, rejecting a premise is essentially saying "I do not believe this is necessarily true in our actual world", which is a long way short of stating belief in a semantic counterexample.

So rejecting FTI1 denotes a belief: "It seems possible to me that this world has a God and that that God is not the same as Jesus".
Rejecting ATI1 denotes a belief: "It seems possible to me that this world contains a man Jesus but no God". Actually it denotes no belief at all since it collapses to a tautology, which I explain at the end of this post.

I would expect most agnostics to reject both FTI1 and ATI1, which is essentially just saying that they don't know whether this world has a God or not.

I think the trouble started with casual talk of "denying premises" or premises being "False".
Premises, being part of Theory, are not True or False. Consider Euclid's parallel postulate (postulate being a synonym of premise). By accepting it, we get one sort of geometry, by rejecting it, we allow a range of alternative geometries.

Strictly speaking one does not deny premises.
One either accepts them or rejects them, that's all.

When reasoning about the world, accepting a premise means we think it's necessarily true in this world. Rejecting it means we don't think it's necessarily true. A sceptic will reject most premises they come across not because they believe them to be correspond to a false state of affairs in the actual world, but because they don't believe them to necessarily correspond to a true state of affairs in the actual world.
We need to always bear in mind that there's much more that we don't know about the world than we do know, so any statement that something is Necessarily the case is a very bold claim. Unless it's a tautology, it may be safest to reject it. But that will depend on context, eg whether we are discussing philosophy or crossing a road.

Lastly, let's come back to why ATI1 is a tautology.

Let OM3C denote the unary predicate: "is a mind that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and created the world, and there is no other object in the world that satisfies those conditions", and let J denote Jesus of Nazareth whom we will assume to have actually lived in Palestine at some time in the reign of Augustus, and to have preached and gained a significant following, hence sidestepping the distracting Historical Jesus debate. So we take as True that the world (the semantic "model" for our logical "theory") contains object J.

Then we can write FTI1 as
(exists x: OM3C(x) ) -> OM3C(J)
and we can write ATI1 as
(for all x: not OM3C(x) ) -> not OM3C(J)

We see from this version that ATI1 is a tautology because if any predicate at all, call it P, is True for every object in the actual world, then it is True for any particular object in the actual world, such as J.
So we can replace ATI1 by any Tautology such as J=J.
This muddle shows the advisability of following Kant's advice that "existence is not a predicate" (although I don't think he ever said it in exactly those terms).
There is no predicate for "exists" so we need to use predicates about attributes, like OM3C, instead.

In conclusion, my dear Moliere, I uphold your right to reject both premises but, having now discovered that ATI1 is a tautology, humbly suggest that there's no harm in accepting that one (which leads nowhere).

I have never been impressed about arguments that demonstrate God’s existence is necessary.
— Fire Ologist

It's not logic's business to impress anyone, just as it's not math's business to impress anyone. — Arcane Sandwich

I meant persuaded, since you are being so precise. Is it logic’s business to persuade? Because the fact that God is all perfect and a possible God is less perfect than an actual God, therefore God must be actual, isn’t persuasive. It’s worth thinking about if asking whether there is a God or not, but I don’t see it as making any converts.

I don't like AI art.

Let's look at the logical structure of both arguments that figure in the OP:

The Christian argument
(FTI1) p → q
(FTI2) p
(FTI3) q

The non-Christian argument
(ATI1) ¬p → ¬q
(ATI2) ¬p
(ATI3) ¬q

Clearly, ATI1 is not tautological, it's contingent. If it was tautological, it could never be false. But it can indeed be false, if ¬p happens to be true and ¬q happens to be false.

So rejecting FTI1 denotes a belief: "It seems possible to me that this world has a God and that that God is not the same as Jesus".
Rejecting ATI1 denotes a belief: "It seems possible to me that this world contains a man Jesus but no God". Actually it denotes no belief at all since it collapses to a tautology, which I explain at the end of this post — andrewk

To deny FTI1 entails asserting the following: "God exists, and Jesus is not God".
To deny ATI1 entails asserting the following: "God does not exist, and Jesus is God."

It's not possible to deny both of those premises, since their antecedents (p and ¬p) contradict each other, and to deny both premises is to say that both antecedents are true (and that both consequents are false).

I think the trouble started with casual talk of "denying premises" or premises being "False".
Premises, being part of Theory, are not True or False. Consider Euclid's parallel postulate (postulate being a synonym of premise). By accepting it, we get one sort of geometry, by rejecting it, we allow a range of alternative geometries. — andrewk

I've already spoken about non-Euclidean geometries . Their pioneers did indeed deny Euclid's fifth postulate, in order to see if a contradiction followed from its negation together with the other postulates.

Strictly speaking one does not deny premises.
One either accepts them or rejects them, that's all. — andrewk

I disagree. See the entry on Ordinary Objects at the SEP, for example. Korman has no problem using the word "deny" for denying the different premises of the arguments against ordinary objects.

We see from this version that ATI1 is a tautology because if any predicate at all, call it P, is True for every object in the actual world, then it is True for any particular object in the actual world, such as J.
So we can replace ATI1 by any Tautology such as J=J. — andrewk

False. ATI1 has the following logical structure "if not p, then not q". That is not a tautology, it's a contingent proposition. It can be true or false. A tautology is always true, and a contradiction is always false.

This muddle shows the advisability of following Kant's advice that "existence is not a predicate" (although I don't think he ever said it in exactly those terms).
There is no predicate for "exists" so we need to use predicates about attributes, like OM3C, instead. — andrewk

False. Mario Bunge, as well as other philosophers, use the predicate letter "E" as an existence predicate, in order to symbolize the property of existence. Predicates and properties are not the same thing. Predicates, like "E", are linguistic. Properties, like existence, are ontological.

In conclusion, my dear Moliere, I uphold your right to reject both premises but, having now discovered that ATI1 is a tautology, humbly suggest that there's no harm in accepting that one (which leads nowhere). — andrewk

To deny both FTI1 and ATI1 is to contradict yourself, since you would be saying "p and not p", since those are the antecedents. ATI1 is not a tautology, it's a contingent proposition.

I meant persuaded, since you are being so precise. Is it logic’s business to persuade? — Fire Ologist

No, it isn't. We've been over this in this thread, and I've already said my piece about it. The concept of persuasion belongs to rhetoric, not to logic:

The way I see it, the qualities of being persuasive and compelling are rhetorical qualities, not logical ones. An argument can be unpersuasive and uncompelling and yet it can still be both valid and sound. Conversely, a formal fallacy can be both persuasive and compelling, and yet it would not be valid nor sound. — Arcane Sandwich

I don’t see it as making any converts. — Fire Ologist

It's not logic's business to make converts.

As Hegel suggests, in The Phenomenology of Spirit, the history of philosophy is like the maturing of a plant. We wouldn't say that the fruit refutes the flower, or that the flower refutes the seed. I believe the same can be said about science. In its contemporary version, it's the end product of a history in which its roots were deeply interwoven with matters of theology, whether we like it or not. It is what it is — Arcane Sandwich

my intention with the OP in this thread isn't to settle every single issue there is to settle in Christian philosophy, or in non-Christian philosophy. I'm just planting some seeds here. Don't expect to harvest the fruits as soon as the seeds have been planted. It would be unrealistic to do so. One of the plants will die, or perhaps both of them will die. In that case, what I planted may serve as nutrients for the germination and maturing of better seeds (i.e., better arguments, both Christian and non-Christian). — Arcane Sandwich

Considering the preceding Hegelian thesis, I have decided to update the OP of this Thread. I will incorporate a slightly modified version of 's argument, and I will offer a corresponding non-Christian argument. His original argument is this one:

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The modified version is this one:

(FTI4) If it is a revealed truth that Jesus is God, then Jesus is God.
(FTI5) It is a revealed truth that Jesus is God.
(FTI6) So, Jesus is God.

The structure of this argument is the following one:

(FTI4) r → q
(FTI5) r
(FTI6) q

The corresponding non-Christian argument is this one:

(ATI4) If it is not a revealed truth that Jesus is God, then Jesus is not God.
(ATI5) It is not a revealed truth that Jesus is God.
(ATI6) So, Jesus is not God.

It has the following structure:

(ATI4) ¬r → ¬q
(ATI5) ¬r
(ATI6) ¬q

Both arguments have, once again, the logical structure of a modus ponens.

It's not logic's business to make converts. — Arcane Sandwich

You keep talking about something other than your own argument.

If God exists….[logic]…so Jesus is God.

And you then you say you reject the premise you asserted to make your own argument. All this is fodder for your point that people like Aquinas and Anselm (or any phislioher trying to prove God exists) should be proving God is Jesus (or Allah, etc).

I disagree. Proofs for the existence of God don’t work, either by their own terms, or by the ease with which one can reject a premise or two and leave the conclusion meaningless.

The existence of Jesus can be rejected too. So why bother to equate God, whose existence we can reject, with Jesus? Sounds like another dead end.

You haven’t shown me why equating God with some particular name for God is important for Aquinas or Avicenna or anyone who is trying to create proofs for God. You sound like you are hunting for bad arguments to shoot down.

Maybe Aquinas already meant “Jesus” when he said “God.” Kind of like you did: “if God exists, God is identical with Jesus.”

Maybe Aquinas thought it would be redundant in an argument about God to separate “God” from “Jesus” in order to assert that the two are “identical.” If such an argument could be made, if such an argument was missing from the vast stores of philosophical wisdom…

I wish someone could prove God exists and that Jesus is God. But using only logical form, based on premises that can be rejected, no one can prove a cat really is a cat, or on a mat. So, there’s that. I’m sure jumping to God instead of cats with mats to find some arguments that might actually say something will be easily rejected as well. But that’s just my take on the whole attempt to prove with logic anything about God’s existence or the identity of God.

You keep talking about something other than your own argument. — Fire Ologist

Like responding to your nonsense, for example?

And you then you say you reject the premise you asserted to make your own argument. — Fire Ologist

See the SEP entry on Ordinary Objects, particularly the section on Arguments from Arbitrariness, in order to see a working example how someone can reject one of their own arguments.

I disagree. Proofs for the existence of God don’t work, either by their own terms, or by the ease with which one can reject a premise or two and leave the conclusion meaningless. — Fire Ologist

False. The four arguments in the OP work. To deny a premise does not mean that there is nothing more to say, since the premise in question can be defended.

The existence of Jesus can be rejected too. So why bother to equate God, whose existence we can reject, with Jesus? Sounds like another dead end. — Fire Ologist

To me it sounds like you're saying nonsense.

You haven’t shown me why equating God with some particular name for God is important for Aquinas or Avicenna or anyone who is trying to create proofs for God. — Fire Ologist

Yes, I have. Repeatedly. Equating god with Jesus would be important for Christian philosophers, and equating God with Allah would be important for Islamic philosophers. I have already explained why, earlier in this Thread.

You sound like you are hunting for bad arguments to shoot down. — Fire Ologist

And you sound like you're assuming ill intent on my behalf, which is against the forum rules. It also sounds like an ad hominem fallacy. And it also sounds like trolling. I've been tolerant enough towards you. If you keep this up, I'll report you and your posts to the moderators.

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters). — Site Guidelines

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

Maybe Aquinas already meant “Jesus” when he said “God.” Kind of like you did: “if God exists, God is identical with Jesus.” — Fire Ologist

Your use of the word "maybe" here is a weasel word.

Maybe Aquinas thought it would be redundant in an argument about God to separate “God” from “Jesus” in order to assert that the two are “identical.” If such an argument could be made, if such an argument was missing from the vast stores of philosophical wisdom… — Fire Ologist

Once again, your use of the word "maybe" here is a weasel word.

I wish someone could prove God exists and that Jesus is God. — Fire Ologist

I already did it. Twice. See the OP of this Thread.

But using only logical form, based on premises that can be rejected, no one can prove a cat really is a cat, or on a mat. So, there’s that. I’m sure jumping to God instead of cats with mats to find some arguments that might actually say something will be easily rejected as well. But that’s just my take on the whole attempt to prove with logic anything about God’s existence or the identity of God. — Fire Ologist

False. I already explained to you what a proof is, earlier in this thread. Your take, which amounts to nothing more than an utterly confused and deluded opinion, is only disrupting this Thread at this point. I'm warning you once again: if you insist on being a troll, I'll have to report you to the mods.

EDIT: I've flagged your post for the moderator's consideration.

I’ve answered your questions.
I’ve given you plenty of content to address that you would rather just dismiss.

I’ve ignored your attitude to respond to your content anyway.

And you give me “your nonsense” and the definition of “ad hominem.”

Like I said, you don’t seem to want to talk about your own argument.

I haven’t been assuming ill-intent. You said I’m trolling for trying my best to speak with you.

You started the post.

Putting the word “God” and “exist” in an argument with proper modus ponens form doesn’t prove anything actually exists. Like I said, Indont think anyone can use logic to jump to ontology. It’s why I disagree Anselm and Descartes succeeded in proving anything actually exists.

Last try. And you owe me an apology now if you want to rejoin a respectful dialogue.

You've been reported for trolling, and I've flagged your most recent comment as well.

EDIT: By the way, I've brought more value to this forum in a month than what you've brought to it in a year, if you've brought anything of value to it at all.

Thanks for announcing that on your thread.

My first post looks snarky to me now. Sorry it came off that way. Was honestly trying to prompt you to restate your position.

If God exists, God is identical to Jesus.
God exists.
So God is identical to Jesus.

The only thing that moves in that argument is God - he goes from maybe or maybe not existing, to “God exists.” You already defined Jesus as identical to this God thing in P1. So the conclusion “therefore God is Jesus” though valid in logical form, puts in modus ponens form the simple assertion, the simple definition, “God is Jesus.”

I don’t bother with all of the analysis if I see the end game already. If you are more interested in the personal chess match, I’m not your interlocutor.

I am interested in what do we learn from this argument? What is now known or made clearer?

We already knew modus ponens. (Or you did. I don’t know what an argument is as you said.). Thanks for the lesson about logic.

But what about God and Jesus - maybe you should define your terms. From an empirical perspective, it seems God and Jesus may be meaningless fictions. How can you even assert “God exists” and say you’ve said anything besides “x exists?” And if we don’t really know what a God is, how can we be sure Jesus (I guess who could NOT be God) is identical to God.

But you said you were an atheist - if you would rather not bother defining what God is before equating him with Jesus, I’d get it. But then I wouldn’t really understand anything more about your argument either.

Nah, you don't get to act all sweet now, after the tremendous virtual shit that you just took on my Thread. I've flagged your most recent comment as well. I'm not here to teach you Logic 101, find somewhere else to learn that. That's not the purpose of this Thread.