{"id":452,"date":"2008-09-24T08:07:10","date_gmt":"2008-09-24T12:07:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=452"},"modified":"2014-11-14T13:58:21","modified_gmt":"2014-11-14T18:58:21","slug":"jesus-and-god-part-2-equivocation-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/jesus-and-god-part-2-equivocation-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"Jesus and “god” – part 2 – equivocation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div>\n
“<\/small><\/em>Your Butt Is Mine \/ Gonna Take You Right \/ Just Show Your Face \/ In Broad Daylight”<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n
(actual bad “Bad” lyrics<\/a>)<\/em>
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

Last time<\/a> we looked at a famous argument about Jesus.<\/strong> (If you’ve never had a course in logic, or if it’s been a while, you should review the linked definitions there of “valid”, “invalid”, and “sound” before proceeding – this discussion presupposes that you understand their meanings.)<\/p>\n

Consider this argument:<\/p>\n

1. Michael Jackson is bad.
\n2. All bad people should be in jail.
\n3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This appears to be a valid argument. Is it?<\/strong> It depends on what “bad” means. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Rewind to before we knew about Michael’s dirty deeds. Then, “bad” meant something like “cool”<\/strong> or “tough”. And I’m sure we’d all agree that premise 1 was true in that sense. ;-). How could premise 2 be true? We’d have to interpret “bad” there to mean “having committed a serious crime”<\/strong>. But then, 3 would not follow from 1 and 2; we would have a fallacy of equivocation<\/a>. To make this painfully obvious, let’s rewrite the argument with the terms clarified:<\/p>\n

1. Michael Jackson is cool.
\n2. All people who have committed serious crimes should be in jail.
\n3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, never mind that 3 is true. The point is that 3 does not logically follow from 1 and 2. (In other words, it is possible for 1 and 2 to be true, while 3 is false.)<\/p>\n

Of course, if we interpret “bad” is the same sense in premises 1 and 2, then the argument comes out valid.<\/strong> (We could then debate about whether it is also sound.) Here’s that valid argument:<\/p>\n

1. Michael Jackson has committed at least one serious crime.<\/p>\n

2. All people who have committed serious crimes should be in jail.<\/p>\n

3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This argument is valid. We can agree on that, and then debate about whether or not it’s also sound. (It’ll be sound if premises 1 and 2 are both true, which, given that it is valid, will imply that 3 is true as well.)<\/p>\n

Now, back to a real man<\/strong> – Jesus. Here again, is the argument about him.<\/p>\n

1. Jesus is divine.
\n2. There is only one god.
\n3. Something is a god if and only if it is divine.
\n4. Therefore, Jesus is the one god.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For this to be valid (for 4 to follow from the truth of 1-3), then “divine” and “god” must be used in the same sense throughout.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is easier to see if we rewrite the argument using just one divinity term<\/strong>. (If we do this, we can discard the obvious premise 3.)<\/p>\n

1. Jesus is a divine being.
\n2. There is only one divine being.
\n3. Therefore Jesus is the one divine being.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Alternately, we could rewrite the argument using “god” throughout.<\/p>\n

1. Jesus is a god.
\n2. There is only one god.
\n3. Therefore, Jesus is the one god.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Why am I not capitalizing the word “god” here? Because it is here being used as a kind-term like “human” or “dog”, not as a name like “George” or “Frank”.) I take it that these two arguments are equivalent.<\/p>\n

Is the argument valid or invalid? It depends on what the terms mean. <\/strong><\/p>\n