Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

16 Comments

  1. Raymond NAVARRO
    August 23, 2016 @ 5:09 pm

    Since Dale is gone, does anyone know how to say “nachos” is Greek or Hebrew?

    Reply

  2. Paul Anchor on numerical identity and it’s absence in the same entity, the Word, taken from trinities.org | Badmanna's Blog
    August 16, 2016 @ 8:47 pm

    […] Paul Anchor • 2 days ago […]

    Reply

  3. Paul Anchor
    August 13, 2016 @ 5:50 pm

    It seems to me that the blind-spot belongs to those who call themselves Unitarians.

    John 1 v 1 asserts the numerical identity and the non-numerical identity of the Word with God. Both contraries are asserted to be equally true of the Word in relation to God.

    The Word is God, i.e. numerically identical to God. He is with God, i.e. he is not numerically identical to God.

    If Unitarians ignore this paradoxical revelation of the nature of the true God they are elevating their own mind above the mind of God and denying his revelation, barking up the wrong tree and wasting everybody’s time, including their own.

    Reply

    • Benjamin Scott
      August 13, 2016 @ 11:41 pm

      Paul,

      What you are defining would not be a paradox, but rather a contradiction. The thing with contradictions is that they cannot possibly be true. To assert that contradictory things can be equally true is to throw dialog out the window. You might as well say that you and I are both right, even though we clearly disagree. That would be a contradiction but in your world that’s just a paradox, so why even dialog? Dialog is not possible to have once you throw logic out the window.

      And it is really not charitable to think that John intended to write a contradiction when there are other options. If John did write contradictions then he really wrote nothing at all.

      Here is the statement to which you refer. Maybe a deeper look at it is in order before asserting that it flatly states something clearly contradictory.

      ?? ???? ?? ? ?????, ??? ? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????, ??? ???? ?? ? ?????.

      Reply

      • Rivers
        August 18, 2016 @ 8:32 am

        Ben,

        Good points. 🙂

        Reply

        • Benjamin Scott
          August 22, 2016 @ 1:32 am

          Thanks 🙂

          Where’s Dale? I miss the podcasts!

          Reply

          • Rivers
            August 22, 2016 @ 8:13 am

            Ben,

            He takes a break in August to finish the summer and prepare for the upcoming academic schedule.

            Reply

            • Benjamin Scott
              August 23, 2016 @ 10:57 am

              Rivers,

              Thanks 🙂 I’ll be patient then.

              Ben

              Reply

  4. Dale Tuggy
    August 5, 2016 @ 6:59 pm

    Update: he refuses to argue anonymously here. He’s a Facebook-only type, I suppose. Well, then I cease to care about preserving his anonymity. He doesn’t want to be quoted on the blog, so I continue to engage with him here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/unbelievablejb/permalink/910474702386380/?comment_id=911422565624927&reply_comment_id=911680625599121&notif_t=group_comment_reply&notif_id=1470437200122015

    After a few more rounds, I’ve written him off as a time-waster. Since I’m not parroting the standard evangelical apologetics line, I must be uninformed or wickedly misrepresenting the issue. (facepalm) Bizarrely, he’s convinced himself that this whole “numerical identity” idea is some crazy idea of mine. Oy.

    Reply

  5. GregLogan25
    August 5, 2016 @ 10:18 am

    I recently listened to a debate between Buzzard and Fred Sanders. I am shocked as to how fallacious Sanders reasoning is again and again making unwarranted assumptions and building on these. Of course, his big gun is EXACTLY the argument that T displays above.

    Admittedly, this is where it gets a bit frustrating. I am at complete loss why otherwise intelligent men suddenly loose all rational and make blithering statements – and then condescending and arrogantly condemn anyone who does not agree with their nonsense – men who claim the name of Jesus Christ – men who are supposedly “professional” Christians, etc.

    Reply

    • Dale Tuggy
      August 5, 2016 @ 6:14 pm

      Yeah, it’s frustrating. It’s kind of like politics. As long as you’re shilling for the right side, people on that side don’t care how terrible your arguments are. When people on the other side are unmoved – well, that’s just because they are so close-minded and dogmatic in their adherence to the other side. It’s all the worse when the “right” side is a sizable majority, or is thought to be so. Sigh.

      Reply

      • GregLogan25
        August 5, 2016 @ 6:47 pm

        Thanks Dale.

        As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ – we are called to “equal weights and measures” – a level of integrity that is unsurpassed. I am happy to see the strengths of others – and weaknesses of my own understanding. In fact delighted… I am looking for that same integrity – and not one who claims “this is orthodox Christianity” all the while sounding like an idiot.

        Reply

  6. James Goetz
    August 3, 2016 @ 10:24 pm

    Hi Dale, I appreciate your post while I object that numerical identity is always all or nothing. As you know, I argue for natural law theory examples of impure relative Identity and outline a natural law analogy of the Trinity http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2016-4.181919061425a/283 For example, impure relative identity is the same as impure absolute identity. Also, I recently saw that I misused a logical term in that paper that has a simple correction, but otherwise my paper makes a good case. Peace, Jim

    Reply

    • James Goetz
      August 5, 2016 @ 10:34 pm

      I want to clarify my mistake and needed correction. After my paper published, I discovered that I misused *if and only if* in several places of my JAT 4 Trinity paper. For example, *if and only if* is a sentence connective while I used it to connect nouns, except when I correctly used it for my definition of LL.

      Here’s an example of an error on page 136:
      The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but not the triumvir if and only if Lepidus.

      Here’s the correction for that example:
      The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.

      I asked an editor if the journal will have room for corrections, and I have not yet heard back.

      Reply

    • James Goetz
      August 6, 2016 @ 12:34 am

      Here are the corrections for my paper:

      The formula indicates the following:
      1. A is relatively identical to the value, but A is not absolutely identical to the value.
      2. B is relatively identical to the value, but B is not absolutely identical to the value.
      3. The value of A is absolutely identical to the value of B.
      4. A is not identical to B.
      (page 135)

      1. The expression 1 + 3 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 1 + 3 is not absolutely identical to 4.
      2. The expression 2 + 2 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 2 + 2 is not absolutely identical to 4.
      3. The value of 1 + 3 is absolutely identical to the value of 2 + 2.
      4. The expression 1 + 3 is not identical to the expression 2 + 2.
      (page 135)

      1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
      2. The pontifex maximus was relatively identical to Lepidus, but pontifex maximus was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
      3. Natural person Lepidus who existed as the triumvir was absolutely identical to natural person Lepidus who existed as the pontifex maximus.
      4. The triumvir was not identical to the pontifex maximus.
      (page 136)

      Natural persons X and Y become proprietors while forming general partnership C. X is C and possesses the entire authority of C; Y is C and possesses the entire authority of C; X and Y are different natural persons….
      1. X is relatively identical to C, but X is not absolutely identical to C.
      2. Y is relatively identical to C, but noY is not absolutely identical to C.
      3. X’s authority of C is absolutely identical to Y’s authority of C.
      4. X is not identical to Y.
      (page 136)

      1. Octavian was relatively identical to the triumvirate, but Octavian was not absolutely identical to the triumvirate.
      2. Lepidus was relatively identical to the triumvirate, but Lepidus was not absolutely identical to the triumvirate.
      3. Antony was relatively identical to the triumvirate, but Antony was not absolutely identical to the triumvirate.
      4. Octavian’s absolute authority was absolutely identical to Lepidus’s absolute authority.
      5. Octavian’s absolute authority was absolutely identical to Antony’s absolute authority.
      6. Lepidus’s absolute authority was absolutely identical to Antony’s absolute authority.
      7. Octavian was not identical to Lepidus.
      8. Octavian was not identical to Antony.
      9. Lepidus was not identical to Antony.
      (pages 136-137)

      1. The Father is relatively identical to the triune God, but the Father is not absolutely identical to the triune God.
      2. The Son is relatively identical to the triune God, but the Son is not absolutely identical to the triune God.
      3. The Holy Spirit is relatively identical to the triune God, but the Holy Spirit is not absolutely identical to the triune God.
      4. The Father’s divine authority is absolutely identical to the Son’s divine authority.
      5. The Father’s divine authority is absolutely identical to the Holy Spirit’s divine authority.
      6. The Son’s divine authority is absolutely identical to the Holy Spirit’s divine authority.
      7. The Father is not identical to the Son.
      8. The Father is not identical to the Holy Spirit.
      9. The Son is not identical to the Holy Spirit.
      (page 140)

      Thank you for your considerations.

      Peace,
      Jim

      Reply

  7. David Kemball-Cook
    August 3, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

    Great article. Ignorance about numerical identity seems to be very common among trinitarians. See eg this thread I started on Unbelievable last October. We got so many different and competing definitions of what it means to say that ‘Jesus is God’, but a common theme was the reluctance to understand that phrase in terms of numerical ID, despite numerical ID being the obvious interpretation.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/unbelievablejb/permalink/770377906396061/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
7 + 18 =