Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

String

Random

Interact

Feedback

Email

Links

Debate

Home

Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

String

Random

Interact

Feedback

Email

Links

Debate

Home

Why Believe in Jesus?

The Logic of Christ

Jesus the Man, Jesus the Myth

The difficulties associated with identifying any one set of characteristics by which to define the Christian god seem significant. Indeed, Christians themselves have difficulty coming to agreement about the nature of God and/or Christian doctrines. This difficulty has resulted in the formation of over thirty-three thousand denominations of Christianity. Nevertheless, in order for an assertion that pertains to the Christian god to have any meaning, some agreement about the definition of this being must be reached. Most Christians accept a select few 'central' doctrines of the Christian faith. For example, the doctrines of the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Second Coming, and the Incarnation. The Incarnation is especially contentious, and as such I would like to focus on it here.

There has been, in the past, much dispute over this doctrine within the Christian church. Arians, Nestorians, and a variety of other Christian sects formulated their own opinions about the Incarnation of Jesus, all of which were heretical. The dispute was finally given an official conclusion in the Athanasian creed. In this, we read of the official church standing on the Incarnation. This creed clearly states that Jesus was fully human and fully divine simultaneously.

So we now have the first part of the definition of the Christian god which I am going to be working with. Part of the definition of the Christian god necessarily entails that Jesus was God. If Jesus wasn't God, then the Christian god does not exist because that is a necessary part of its definition. Some other god may still exist, but by definition that one does not. What other relevant attributes of divinity are there? Well, we know that the Christian god is supposed to be omniscient. Many Christians also believe that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible. If something is logically impossible (ie. A & ~A) then God cannot do it because it is nonsense. Many Christians (although there are fewer and fewer all the time) also believe that the Bible is the inerrantly inspired word of God. In other words, everything that the Bible claims is true.

So Jesus is God, God is omniscient, God is restrained by logical bounds, and the Bible is inerrant. If it can be shown that Jesus was not God, or that God is not omniscient or restrained by logical bounds, then the Christian god, by definition, does not exist. If this is not part of your definition of the Christian god, then the following argument is irrelevant. This argument does not apply to other versions of the Christian god.

I'm going to present my argument in symbolic form.

Jesus = J

God = G

Omniscient = O

Negation = ~

A. 1)

P1- G is O

P2- ~(J is O)

C1- ~(J is G)

If (antecedent), then (consequent) = >

The Christian god exists = E

A. 2)

P1- E>(J is G)

P2 (C1)- ~(J is G)

C2- ~E

As you may or may not know, A. 1) and A. 2) are both valid deductive arguments. The truth of the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. That is because the conclusion does not state any new information. It only combines information that is already combined in the premises.

So the only way to show that my conclusions (J is ~G and ~E) are false is by showing that one or both of the premises in either of my arguments is/are false. Is that possible? Let us consider the arguments.

A. 1)

P1- This one follows from the definition of the Christian god provided above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to that definition, does not exist.

P2- This one follows from Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims that the Son (Jesus) does not know about the day or hour of the Second Coming. Remember, the Bible is supposed to be inerrant, so Mark 13:32 must be correct. Jesus was ignorant of something, so he could not know everything. Therefore, this premise is true.

C1, as I've explained, follows from the premises.

A. 2)

P1- This follows from the definition of the Christian god outlined above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to said definition, does not exist. So this premise is true.

P2- This premise is C1, which we have seen is true.

C2- This follows from P1 and P2.

So it appears as though the theist who believes that the Christian god as is defined above exists is trapped. Nevertheless, I have come across one argument that seems, at first, to deal with the difficulty.

Some Christians advocate the dual-nature theory of Christ. They glean this theory from a corpus of theological literature that bases its conclusions largely upon Philippians 2:5-8 that seems to imply that Jesus set aside his divine attributes while on Earth.

This dual-nature theory of Christ claims that Jesus was composed of both human and divine natures. This argument, as is commonly portrayed, looks like this:

Omniscient = O Divine nature = D Human nature = H Jesus = J Conjunction = & Negation = ~ A. 3) P1- J is (H&D) P2- D is O C3- J is O

Sometimes this argument uses different symbols, but the form is always the same. At first, this argument would appear to remove any problems posed by my argument above, because it effectively shows that P2 might be false. However, upon closer inspection we see the reason why P1 of A. 3) is problematic.

A. 4)

P1- J is (H&D)

P2- ~(H is O)

C4- ~(J is O)

So we see that the same premise, 'J is (H&D)' yields two conclusions:

A. 5)

P1(C3)- J is O

P2(C4)- ~(J is O)

C5- (J is O)&~(J is O)

You should be able to tell intuitively that C3&4 is self-contradictory, but in case you cannot, I'll explain how it is by using truth tables.

Now, how is it that one goes about showing that a statement is self-contradictory? Well, we know that for any two simple statements, 'p' and 'q', each has its own truth value, and there are only four possible combinations of these truth values:

p q

t t

t f

f t

f f

You can see that under 'p' and 'q' I have charted every single possible combination of the truth values of these two simple statements. They are either both true, both false, or p is false and q is true or q is false and p is true.

The negation (~) of these statements is simply a reversal of the truth values:

~p ~q

f f

f t

t f

t t

Now, for any statement 'p&q', that statement's truth value is held under the major connective, in this case '&'. When is the statement 'p&q' true?

p&q

t t t

t f f

f f t

f f f

'p&q' is only true when both of the simple statements are true. So what happens when we have a statement 'p&~p'? Let's map out the truth-values.

p&~p

t f f

t f f

f f t

f f t

You can see that since it is never true that both p and ~p, the statement 'p&~p' is self-contradictory. A statement is self-contradictory if and only if all of the truth-values under the major connective are 'f', as they are in this case.

Now let's apply this simple logical principle to the ultimate conclusion of P1 of A. 3), which is, as we have seen, C5.

(J is O)&~(J is O)

t f f

t f f

f f t

f f t

Since all of the truth-values under the major connective of C5 are 'f', C5 is self-contradictory. Anything that is self-contradictory cannot be true. C5 follows from P1 of A. 3). Therefore P1 of A. 3) is not true. Consequently, my argument stands. If you like, I can symbolise this argument as well.

A. 6)

P1- A. 3)>C5

P2- ~C5

C6- ~A. 3)

This argument is a simple rule of inference known as modus tollens. It is necessarily true.

So what recourse is left to the Christian? Sometimes they resort to a dual-mind theory of Christ, but this is problematic also for many of the same reasons as well as the conceptual problems of claiming that one being can possess two minds.

The Christian sometimes attempts to deny that the definition of the Christian god outlined above is true. That is a valid move. However, if the Christian chooses to deny that definition, then there are consequences. Furthermore, their wish to change the definition does not in any way show that my argument is false. Instead, it only shows that my argument is irrelevant.

No matter how many arguments I present, however, the theist can always change the definition of the Christian god. It is for this reason that I was careful to specify that this proof only shows that one definition of the Christian god does not exist. This argument does not purport to show that no god exists at all. It is impossible to prove that no god exists at all in the same way that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible, intangible, undetectable pink elephant standing behind you right now.

I would also like to point out that if this argument were shown to be invalid, that would not mean that the Christian god does exist or that belief in it is justified. The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the claim. If the Christian claims that the Christian god exists, it is up to the Christian to prove said claim just as it would be my responsibility to prove my claim that the Christian god does not exist.

© Jason Hatherly 2001 (original text)

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited