Good point. But your argument is still in need of modification.
Recall that I pointed out that holiness has no clear definition, and doing my best I inferred holiness to be "without sin." You did not correct me on this despite responding to the paragraph containing it.
I'm sure you're right that my argument needs some mending since it is a first draft and all. But even with that being the case, I still have two points of friendly contention with your assertion that I haven't provided a “clear” definition:
1) I presented what I think is a sufficient definition of 'holy' that, even if brief, describes the historical connotations related to its use as it has emerged from the linguistic traditions of both Jews and Greeks. If this isn't good enough, then I'm not sure where else to go to get a satisfactory definition for something that can't be formulated by experience or caught in a test-tube and analyzed. Maybe you'd like to join me in Colorado to pan for gold—we'd probably have more luck with that, even if our efforts wouldn't bring home the motherload. OR maybe you want me to type out the remaining five paragraphs of the definition of 'holines/holy' in that Dictionary of the Bible I used, an act of labor which I am not really wont to undertake and which would probably go against copy-right laws anyway.
2) On another analytic level, I think it's inconsistent for you to allow us (Christians), on the one hand, to “...assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity,” and on the other hand, to not allow for the inclusion of some minimal but yet still meaningful use of the term 'holy.' Why does this seem inconsistent to me? It's because the concept of the Trinity has at least one member whose very essence is specifically identified by naught but the descriptor in question, i.e. the Holy Spirit. If we can't allow for sufficient meaning of the concept of 'holy' in a basic sense, then we can't cogently allow for the inclusion of the Trinity as a type of axiom. I won't even bring up the other inconsistency that automatically protrudes if the Trinity is assumed...
So, is this where we're at? Are you going to continue to 'allow' for the inclusion of the Trinity, but not for a minimal yet sufficient presence of conceptual holiness within the attempted syllogism I've presented, one that religious Jewish persons and various Christians through the ages have already sufficiently developed and defined?
Now, if God is "without sin" then he is "without relational infraction against himself." And this seems to be silly at best, but I don't think you intended for someone to come to this conclusion and thus your definition of "holiness" is malformed. So it's back to the drawing board.
Perhaps I should have articulated it differently, but my purpose for placing that clause in the argument was to prevent any balking about the very inference for which you are now balking. But, maybe the clause isn't even needed when the syllogism is read by an intelligent mind such as yours. In my mind, if God is Holy, then it follows that He can have no relational discord within Himself. God is Holy and His creations (or in this case, God's little human beings) can choose to maintain concordance with their Creator, or not, depending on their predisposition toward that relationship. With this in view, I think you should let this contention or yours go and just take the 'logical' hit, NV.
Given that every syllogism presented thus far has been dead in the water, I have no aversion to discussing other interesting things.
(I'm chuckling) ... at the moment I don't intend to derail this discussion. Or, I could just say that I “don't care” about discussing it and leave it at that. But, I might be lying if I said that.
I'll give you that. It's not paradoxical - it's just nonsensical as defined.
Well, it makes sense to me. My conclusion at 7 simply comes as a follow-up to the preceding premises...like 5 and 6, for instance.
"Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday" is not paradoxical.
I'm not seeing how the fact that God's requirement for the death of sinful human beings at the same time at which mercy is to be extended is analogous to “blue/faster.” Of course, I didn't take the Miller Analogies Test...so, maybe I could be missing something.
Faith is not a matter of deductive logic... ya don't say...
No. I don't say. What I actually say is that it is not '
merely' a matter of deductive logic. In other words, without God's input into the overall data system, all we will be doing with deductive thought, if we try to apply it to the Biblical concepts of God, is to perhaps clarify some portions of what is already given; it won't be to find out new information about God. In saying this, I have in mind an accommodation to the kind of thing which Immanuel Kant referred to by way of his Analytic/Synthetic distinction. Of course, other philosophers since then have questioned Kant's sensibilities in making this distinction, but I think he offers some interesting points about the nature of statements.
I do not see how it includes any of those things.
While it isn't too much to say that Christian thought can use some of these methods in the process of understanding basic things in the bible—like the necessity of Christ to satisfy God's Justice, the substance of our having faith in these things as a form of reality will require the work of God Himself in orchestrating what is needed to believe; our reaching the conclusion of faith will not come about by our sole efforts to attain certain insights that we may, at any given moment, just happen to think will enable us to believe.
So then ultimately you agree that no logical syllogism exists, at least none that is accessible to humanity.
Actually, I think I provided a syllogism that sufficiently demonstrates the issue of necessity of Jesus' role in the extension by God of mercy and forgiveness to humanity (although I admit it might need some work or additional clarification).
What I don't believe is that there is any syllogism that can be constructed which will knock anyone to their knees and compel them to cry out, "Oh God, Abba, Father!!!” No, for that you have to actually eat the pretzel and find out that you savor it. Or you realize you detest the flavor, spit it out and go your way. This might sound empirical, but it's really not, at least not by much. Rather, I think that in the case of faith there is something to be said for axiological considerations and not just for those of epistemology, metaphysics and logic.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
