FORMAL LOGIC

[helmut]

The moral-ethical laws of God apply to all of us, whether or not we consent to what is done to our bodies.

I am with you.

This is the categorical observation that I am making, about this argument.

It did not sound like that, because you focused of action done by the person of that body, not about actions done to that body.

The argument is claiming that no law can legitimately be made, that imposes behavior on me, that I do not want.

I can't see how this follows from the form of the argument as I have formalized it.

( I do not want to get into discussions on "evolution". Dembski's arguments in The Design Inference, is all from probability theory.

But to calculate a probability, you need at least some information. I pointed to an explanation that drastically increase the probability of irreducible structures/functions.

And Neo-Darwinism is based first on randomness.)

Randomness produces entropy, which is information in information theory. Without selection, you will not expect any useful information, but rather the messy information of a random generator (you will not be able to compress random data, which shows it has the highest amount of information possible within that number of bits). But with randomness (mutation) and selection, it is hard to find a sound argument against evolution in this point.

For the first living creature, things are somewhat different, but still not that bad as some creationists present it (it would be off-topic to go into details here).

This example is interesting insofar as you cite an argument which turns out to be faulty. Check the basic assumptions, if they are not sound, the whole argumentation is without value. AFAI understand, Dembski fell into the trap (see my argument in the previous post), the »randomness does not produce information«-group fell into this trap (see above).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Plover, Helmut and Stephen last couple of days' posts:

Try S J Gould for contingency and exaptation, he covers all the arguments on all sides, with the added advantage of not posing as so called "theist".

He doesn't cover human evolution.

God created mankind in His image as capable of safeguarding the integrity of others in a contingent universe (and that's logic).

Even Descartes said at least "cogito ergo sum". In the words of the apocryphal preacher, "we're 'ere because we're 'ere."

Why fall back on the assumptions of Dennett (and merely pretending not to)?

It isn't "a mystery". A wonder, yes.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... selection, ...

This example is interesting insofar as you cite an argument which turns out to be faulty. Check the basic assumptions, if they are not sound, the whole argumentation is without value. AFAI understand, Dembski fell into the trap (see my argument in the previous post), the »randomness does not produce information«-group fell into this trap (see above).

I'm confidently with Helmut on this.

Wallace used the phrase "natural processes (plural) of selection" which he probably didn't try to limit (I haven't studied him in detail).

This is what contingency is, causing mesoevolution.

"Christian philosophers" along with the debased "pragmatists" deny the appearing of all contingency.

Queer as that's how God created the place to be.

 

[Stephen3141]

My point in bringing up the topic of Intelligent design, is that the Intelligent design authors use logic, to reason about this topic.
My basic point, is that Christians use logic to reason about all sorts of topics.
I'm really not interested, here , in discussing the Intelligent Design authors.
These comments are off topic.

As for the argument I was addressing...
"It's my body -- keep your laws off my body!"

This argument must address both me using my body to do something,
and other people using their body to do things to me.

Both of these categories of actions, must be addressed by those who assert this argument.

But, if you assert this argument,
Then you must assert that no one can make a law about what you do to your body,
AND, no one can make a law about what OTHER people can do to your body.

My point in calling this argument UNSOUND,
is that all fair rules of law, including God's moral-ethical law,
limit what we can do to our body, and limit what we can do to other people's bodies.
---------- ----------

This is a basic characteristic in a fair rule of law.
It should not be controversial.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

...

But, if you assert this argument,
Then you must assert that no one can make a law about what you do to your body, 1
AND, no one can make a law about what OTHER people can do to your body.

My point in calling this argument UNSOUND,
is that all fair rules of law, including God's moral-ethical law,
limit what we can do to our body, 2 and limit what we can do to other people's bodies.
---------- ----------

This is a basic characteristic in a fair rule of law.
It should not be controversial.

i - The phrases 1 and 2 should perhaps read: "what we do with our body to other people"

ii - Rule of law used to be open to agnostics to uphold. Likewise logic (honesty) was open to agnostics too (if they weren't of the William James persuasion). Why cite "Christian" philosophers? Why not simply identify a category of honest ones?

iii - Ethics are different from laws, even when people accept God's moral-ethical law for its own sake as a law of Nature.

I agree with your last two sentences here.

This is why I thought you skipped too many topics before you got onto this. Can you cite another instance illustrating your same point?

 

[helmut]

My point in bringing up the topic of Intelligent design, is that the Intelligent design authors use logic, to reason about this topic.
My basic point, is that Christians use logic to reason about all sorts of topics.

Their reasoning contains a logical error (overlooking a logical possibility).

If you disregard any logical error, you may call any reasoning »logical«. For if you substract the logical errors, what is left is applied logic.

As for the argument I was addressing...
"It's my body -- keep your laws off my body!"

This argument must address both me using my body to do something,
and other people using their body to do things to me.

So you were not discussing the argument brought forward by abortionists, but rather discuss an argument that sounds very similar and was created by you.

My point in calling this argument UNSOUND,
is that all fair rules of law, including God's moral-ethical law,
limit what we can do to our body, and limit what we can do to other people's bodies.

If you omit the last clause (italicized by me) this would address the argument brought forward.

And yes, there are such limits on what we can do (or allow to be done) with our own body. I hinted at that when I mentioned adultery as something in the same category.

And a more secular example: In most countries killing a human that wants to be killed is a crime by law.

 

[Stephen3141]

Enough is enough!

I gave an example of an argument, and did some basic analysis on it, with regard to soundness, from a Christian point of view.

I do not think that any of the analysis is controversial.
And, yet, there are endless posts dealing with what people imagine the argument to mean,
rather than the argument that I quoted for analysis.

---------- ----------
The argument was: "It's my body -- Keep your laws off my body."

You will hear this argument commonly in America.
Sometimes it is the context of reproduction, and abortion.

My analysis, from the standpoint of a Christian worldview, included the criticisms:

-- This argument tacitly claims to be globally applicable
-- This argument asserts that NO LAW can validly address what I do with my body
-- This argument is incompatible with both God's moral-ethical laws, and a secular fair rule of law.
-- This argument includes what a policeman or court could enforce, on my body

For all these reasons, this argument is incompatible with Christianity.
As most of what we do, involves our body,
this argument denies the validity of ANY fair rule of law, to regulate what I do with my body.

This argument is not compatible with Christianity.
This argument is unsound.
---------- ----------

By the way, this argument asserts that God does not have the right to raise our bodies from the dead,
and condemn us to hell, if we qualify for that.

This argument asserts that there can never be ANY fair rule of law.

Why am I getting endless posts, claiming that there are errors in evaluating this argument,
from a Christian worldview?

 

[helmut]

I gave an example of an argument, and did some basic analysis on it, with regard to soundness, from a Christian point of view.

The discussion was about which argument you gave.

The argument was: "It's my body -- Keep your laws off my body."

You formalized it as:

For all the different parts of my body,
If I use this part in any way ==> no one should be able to legislate about that use

My formalization was:

For all the different parts of my body,
If there is anything done to them with my consent ==> no one should be able to legislate about that action

And I think the second formalization is meant when the argument is given.

Of your criticism, only the following point are aimed at my formalization:

-- This argument tacitly claims to be globally applicable
-- This argument is incompatible with both God's moral-ethical laws …

By the way, this argument asserts that God does not have the right to raise our bodies from the dead,
and condemn us to hell, if we qualify for that.

Why am I getting endless posts, claiming that there are errors in evaluating this argument,
from a Christian worldview?

If you argue with a secular person, he may well protest that you misrepresented his argument, and has a right to say you are using a straw-man. This is the only criticism of your analysis, the rest is OK.

 

[Stephen3141]

More about the topic of trying to evaluate the soundness (trueness) of premises in an argument...

This gets deeply into the topic of Epistemology (what is truth? How do we recognize truth? How do we evaluate when a proposition is true...). But, many Christians have no background in the historic (philosophical) subject of Epistemology.

Here are some basic quotes from a textbook on Epistemology from the university of Oxford. This university has been a center of philosophy and logic, for the last century.

Although you can argue that this is a secular approach to Epistemology, these concepts are foundational. After christian become familiar with the concepts, then they can think about Christian applications of the concepts.

As usual, the "spelling correctors" in my word processor and FB, often mangle what I am trying to write. THEY do not know anything about what I am trying to write, or Epistemology!

---------- ----------
“Here are some points of widespread agreement. First, knowledge implies truth; you cannot know that P unless P is true.” [Epistemology, 5]

“The idea that knowledge is not merely true belief goes back at least to Plato’s dialogues.”
[Epistemology, 55]

About group voting about what is true…

If each person in a democracy has > 50% chance of picking the right answer, then the group vote will tend toward 100% accuracy, as the group gets larger. [Epistemology 237]

If each person in a democracy has < 50% chance of picking the right answer, then the group vote will tend toward 0% accuracy, as the group gets larger. [Epistemology 239]

Note that when discussing a single topic, there are often many different conclusions/answers that someone could pick. So, if a person randomly picks an answer, then the probability that that answer will be right, is far less than 50%. [Stephen]

“Epistemology is the study of knowledge and the related phenomena such as thought, reasoning, and the pursuit of understanding. [Epistemology, 3]

“Can one ascertain the truth by just reaching out grasping some facts? It isn’t clear how one does that.” [Epistemology, 4]

“Belief belongs to a family of psychological attitudes directed at propositions.” [Epistemology, 4]
Others are disbelief and agnosticism.

Truth and justification are not necessarily the same thing. [Epistemology, 5]

The Regress Problem: how do we see our beliefs, offering support to other beliefs we hold?
[Epistemology, 7]

Foundationalism: a view of beliefs that says that some beliefs are basic, and self-justifying.
[Epistemology, 7-8]

“Coherentism depicts a body of justified beliefs as a holistic system whose parts mutually support one another.” [Epistemology, 10]

Coherentism doesn’t guarantee that conclusions are true. [Epistemology, 37]

What is required to have a belief “justified”? [Epistemology, 13]

“Belief per se should not be considered an evidential state; only justified belief deserves to be counted as evidence.” [Epistemology, 28]

An attempt to define “evidence”. [Epistemology, 32]

“It is crucial that the belief-forming process used be of an appropriate or suitable kind. Which belief-forming processes are suitable and which are unsuitable?” [Epistemology, 33]

“If one starts with justified beliefs in the premises and applies a valid reasoning process to it, the output of the reasoning process will also be justified.” [Epistemology, 33]
(This is the basis of the concepts of “logically sound” and “logically valid” in formal logic.)

“The term perceptual experience isn’t part of common parlance, but it is connected to talk of how things look, sound, feel, and so forth. When we have a visual experience, things look certain ways to us; when we have an auditory experience, things sound certain ways to us, and so forth. The ‘ways’ things look, feel, sound, correspond to the properties present to us when we undergo these experiences.” [Epistemology, 132]

*** There have been different levels of belief, with regard to a hypothetical situation, among different ethnic groups. [Epistemology, 192]

Different people may evaluate the same evidence differently, because they have different mental models. [Epistemology, 192]

People may evaluate the same evidence differently, because they are evaluating it with regard to different propositions. [Epistemology, 192]

We need some way to calibrate our intuition. [Epistemology, 189]
(There is debate among philosophers, how to do this)

Calling a method scientific, doesn’t make it so. [Epistemology, 190]

“Historically, science has overthrown many common sense beliefs that had seemed so secure that as to be immune from critical scrutiny.” [Epistemology, 193]

Hume thinks that we can infer whether testimony is reliable. [Epistemology, 208]
If we can’t how can we evaluate testimony in a court of law?

I consider the theories of social epistemology to be mainly B.S. [Stephen]

“Knowledge can be acquired by listening to the words of others.” [Epistemology, 207]

The meaning of not giving testimony (being silent) depends on the surrounding social system. [Epistemology, 212]

What about people who claim to be experts? Is their testimony worth more? [Epistemology, 214]

There are negative trends in deliberation in democracies. [Epistemology, 239]

Group voting accuracy goes way up, when the weight of accurate voters is increased. [Epistemology, 240]

The idea of “followers” and “mavericks”. [Epistemology, 243]

Adding 10% of mavericks to a population of followers, increased success by 214%. [Epistemology, 244]

In a group seeking solutions, “diversity trumps ability.” [Epistemology, 245]
Note that the definition of “diversity” here is not Barack Obama’s “non-white-male” definition.
The text is talking about a diversity of skills and backgrounds.

I don’t like the process of probabilistic epistemology. [Epistemology, 251] Stephen

[Epistemology] Epistemology: A Modern Introduction, Alvin I. Goldman and Matthew McGrath, 2015, Oxford University Press.

 

[Stephen3141]

For Christians, in the process of thinking about how historic ideas of epistemology fit into a Christian worldview,
I think that we need to think about some basic relationships and concepts.

Remember: There is no need to FEAR philosophical approaches that are different than historic Christian approaches.

Remember: There is the old Two Worlds philosophical concept.

1. There is the “world” that we observe
2. There is the “real” world that creates these perceptions of the world, that we observe.

Example: The top of a desk seems to be solid. But the models of physics that work, tell us that most physical substance is made of empty space. We perceive a hard desktop. We know that it is mostly empty space. These are not necessarily contradictory things (perception, and the reality). But we should be careful to notice that our perceptions do not necessarily tell us about the real “essence” of a thing.

Remember:

1. There is the real world, with many different components
2. There are our perceptions of the real world components, which may or may not be accurate, and to different degrees. Perceptions do not necessarily determine the essence of reality.
3. There are beliefs that we have. These may be about the real world, or our perceptions, or just assertions that we make. Beliefs are conclusions.
4. Beliefs may be justified, or unjustified. (We are NOT talking about the theological meaning of "justification")
5. Justified beliefs, are what knowledge is made of.
6. There are great debates on how to justify a belief. Christians may justify their beliefs with methods that are not secular, and some methods that secular people do recognize as valid
7. Opinions are more working assertions that we have not justified, and so we do not see as beliefs, yet. We can have opinions, about beliefs
8. The scientific method, is one method of justifying beliefs.
9. The scientific method is a like a subset of applying formal logic.
10. Scientific models are a type of belief, that is justified with current information.
11. Scientific models change, over the centuries (you could say that they are relative).
12. Christian reasoning is a superset of formal logic.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now, we have enough historical concepts, to talk much more specifically about how
modern Americans have trouble figuring out whether or not their initial premises, are TRUE.
(If the initial premises in a proof are not TRUE, then the proof is unsound.)

---------- ----------
About the points above...

(1) The Bible, and God's people, present that assertion that we live in a shared reality.
The biblical command to "bear true witness" or "do not bear false witness" requires that we live in a shared reality.
These biblical commands, also assume that our perceptions of this shared reality, are basically accurate.

(2) Our perceptions of reality, are not quite the same as this shared reality.
The Bible commands us "be careful, how you hear!"
We may see, without "seeing", or hear without "hearing".
We are morally-ethically responsible for how we perceive our shared reality.

(3-4) Beliefs, in the context of epistemology, are a type of conclusion that we hold.
Our beliefs may match our shared reality (they may be true), or not.
Beliefs that have not been justified, are mere personal opinions.
Even the Apostle Paul, did not put much stock in his personal opinions.
To justify a belief, in the Christian sense, requires that the belief match sound evidence from our shared reality.

(Conspiracy theories involve a lot of beliefs, without sound evidence from our shared reality.)

(5) Beliefs can be considered knowledge, IF they are well justified.

(6) Note that anti-intellectual Christian groups, and Christian groups that embrace that
valid reasoning methods are part of our shared reality, have VERY different methods
of justifying their beliefs.

(7) Opinions, are more working beliefs, that we have not soundly justified.
We should never confuse opinions with perceptions,
or perceptions with evidence that we observe in our shared reality.

(8) The scientific method is inductive. It involves making a model of some aspect of
our shared reality, then criticizing the model and testing the model (against our shared reality).

Note that the scientific method, typically uses vocabularies that CANNOT express a lot
of those concepts and things that historic Christianity would consider to be part of
our shared reality. This includes values, virtues, and vices. Typically, the vocabularies
used in the hard sciences CANNOT express moral-ethical systems. (We see this lack of
morality-ethics in the early AI tools, as a result.)

(9) The scientific method is a subset of applications of formal logic.
This is because formal logic can use propositions that can express ANYTHING
that a human language can express.

(10) Note that scientific models are a type of belief. Scientific thinkers try to justify their models
with evidence from our shared reality. But, at times in history, scientific thinkers realize that a
certain model CANNOT handle new information about our shared reality. And then, scientific
models change.

(12) I would argue that this is true, because Christians recognize a larger
number of components in our shared reality. This includes the conscience,
God's moral-ethical law, the text of the Bible, and the history of God's people.
---------- ----------

There are al sorts of topics that are related to how we evaluate whether or not
a logical proof is Sound (whether or not the premises are true).

Observation: The heart of conspiracy theories, is telling a story that seems plausible,
if "justified" by a lot of other assertions (most of which are unjustified). Conspiracy
theories are examples of (usually) Coherent systems of assertions. But, as we see
from Epistemology, a story being internally Coherent, does not mean that it is true.

If we rigorously try to find evidence from our shared reality, that supports all the
assertions in a conspiracy theory, we will quickly find that the "evidence" that is
presented (what is presented as evidence to us) is more unjustified beliefs.
Unjustified beliefs are NOT facts. They are not evidence.

Observation: One characteristic of those who spin conspiracy theories, is that they
live in a very small and fake "reality" of experience. They choose to live in a very narrow stream
of talk. They do not live in the shared reality that the Bible presents. As a result, they do not
have the resources to find evidence that justifies their conspiracy theories.

Observation: Beliefs that are justified, can be treated as facts.
In the same way, those who give testimony in a courtroom, and whose
testimony matches our shared reality rigorously, can be seen as
providing facts for the legal system to work on.

Testimony that is given in court, which has not been rigorously justified,
has no standing (as fact).

For Christians, witnesses of the events in the history of the people of God,
if their testimony is justified, can pass down their testimony to the people of
God in later generations, as facts.

Observation: It is impossible to justify a belief, with a method that cannot
express the essence of the belief. For example, the hard sciences do not have
the vocabulary to express concepts in Moral Theory, so the hard sciences have
nothing authoritative to say about morality-ethics.

Question: How does a Christian, who knows nothing of the biblical languages,
justify their opinion about what a specific text of the Bible means?

Question: How does a Christian, who knows nothing of the biblical languages,
justify their opinion about that their translation of the Bible is accurate?

Question: How does a Christian, who appeals to their favorite commentary to
explain what a text of Scripture means, justify their opinion that their commentary
must be true?

Question: How does a Christian, who knows nothing about (formal) logic,
assert that their opinions about logic are true?

Question: If different Christians appeal that their belief is the result of the
Holy Spirit leading them to truth, but their beliefs contradict each other, then
HOW should these Christians justify their beliefs that the Holy Spirit is
leading them to true conclusions?

Observation: If basic premises in a proof are unsound (not true), then the
conclusion of the proof is also unsound. A common source of unsound proofs
presented by Christians, is that they are not using the same concept definitions
that the original biblical languages are using. (These unsound conclusions,
are merely unjustified beliefs.)

 

[helmut]

Example: The top of a desk seems to be solid. But the models of physics that work, tell us that most physical substance is made of empty space. We perceive a hard desktop. We know that it is mostly empty space. These are not necessarily contradictory things (perception, and the reality). But we should be careful to notice that our perceptions do not necessarily tell us about the real “essence” of a thing.

This is what science taught about 100 years ago, but not what modern science really teaches.

The Bohr model considered the electrons in the shell of an Atom as particles, and their size could be neglected compared to the size of the atom. Hence, the atom was more than 95% empty space (the lighter the atom, the more empty space was there).

But with the advancement of quantum physics, any particle could also be viewed as a wave (and vice versa). So modern science sees the electron shell of an atom filled by a field of electrons considered as waves, and this is not empty space.

In our daily experience, it doesn't make much sense to speak about this double nature of objects, you do not want to describe sound waves as particles (though I dimly remember having read an article about an experiment where it made sense to describe two sounds as two colliding phonon particles). The »identity« of particles and waves is therefore an example for »our perceptions do not necessarily tell us about the real “essence” of a thing«, for our perception keeps the two concepts strictly separate.

 

[helmut]

Note that the scientific method, typically uses vocabularies that CANNOT express a lot of those concepts and things that historic Christianity would consider to be part of
our shared reality. This includes values, virtues, and vices. Typically, the vocabularies used in the hard sciences CANNOT express moral-ethical systems. (We see this lack
of morality-ethics in the early AI tools, as a result.)

Another aspect I want to point to: the scientific method cannot explore the whole realm of physical reality. The methodology does not allow to consider singular events like miracles: If the outcome of an experiment cannot be reproduced it is of no scientific value. There is a reason why the part of scientific method common to all hard science (physics, chemistry etc.) is sometimes called »methodological atheism«.

This means:

• There is not, and cannot be, a purely scientific proof that God exists. Any such proof either contains an element that goes beyond science, or contains some error (fault? which English term is adequate here?).
• Stating that things are only real when there is a scientific proof for them is equivalent to say there is no God and there are no miracles.
• Methodological atheism is not evil and should not be fought against, but one should bear in mind that this method excludes parts (or aspects) of reality. The atheist position mentioned above can be described as the belief these parts are empty.

Question: How does a Christian, who knows nothing of the biblical languages, justify their opinion about what a specific text of the Bible means?

Such a layman can only rely on the work of the experts that give him the information what is there in the Greek text. This information can be directly given (Bible translation, commentary) or gathered indirectly (e.g. by using a dictionary).

With indirect ways to get at that information, one should be careful lest one comes to hasty conclusions that seem obvious, but are nevertheless wrong. Be ready for correction by real experts.

if one encounters a different exegesis than the one known to him, he should ask about the reasons, i.e. the logic that lead the other person to that exegesis. Comparing this with the logic to the own exegesis shows where the point of difference lays, and allows to talk more precise about the different opinions and what passages in the Bible can be used to decide between them.

A hasty conclusion »this is not what I believe, so this must be wrong« are unsound. Another case is »I've seen that before, examined it and found it wrong«, but even then the other person should be given the chance to offer new evidence.

Question: How does a Christian, who knows nothing of the biblical languages, justify their opinion about that their translation of the Bible is accurate?

Better have more than one translation. For personal devotion, one should sting to one translation lest one gets into cherry-picking from different translations, but if you want to know what the original text means, it is better to compare two or more translations.

One should also know some facts about the translation in use:

• The type of translation. The extreme examples are (my terminology, maybe there is an established terminology in English I'm not aware of):

1. Literal: Modelling the structure of Hebrew/Greek sentences as close as possible in the target language, using always the same term for one word in the original language.
2. »Dynamic« Focused on the meaning of the text, trying to translate as close as possible to the original meaning of the text (which often requires to be not literal).
3. »Explanatory«: transferring concepts alien in the target culture into concepts familiar to the reader, the target concepts are conceived as equivalent though different.

Any translation can be described as a sort of mixture between these extreme types. For example, almost every translation into English uses »betroth, engage» as a translation of the (legal, social) state that a couple is married by law, but has not yet celebrated the wedding (and usually: it still had no sex with one another). Even rather literal translations get explanatory in this point (same in my mother tongue, German). The obvious reason: There a virtually no such couples in our societies.​

• The theological convictions of the translators. A translator should not translate his theology into the text, but this cannot be fully excluded, such tendencies can creep into the text unconsciously. Better you know which tendency is to be expected in your translation.
• The style of the translated text (in the broadest sense of the word): Old English, sophisticated vs. simple language, formal vs. colloquial etc. - some translations try to vary the style according to the different styles in the original texts,

Maybe there are more aspects of a translation that are interesting for a careful reader - if you know one, add it to the list above.

Question: If different Christians appeal that their belief is the result of the Holy Spirit leading them to truth, but their beliefs contradict each other, then HOW should these Christians justify their beliefs that the Holy Spirit is leading them to true conclusions?

Obviously, either the point contradiction is of no importance to the Spirit (cf. Rm 14:5), or at least one of them was not led by the Spirit in that point.

A common source of unsound proofs presented by Christians, is that they are not using the same concept definitions
that the original biblical languages are using. (These unsound conclusions, are merely unjustified beliefs.)

I avoid using the term »anti-Christ« for the (first) beast in Rev 13, because this term has a quite different meaning in the NT and is absent from the book of revelation. This is my example of a rather common deviation from Biblical terminology (at least in the German-speaking world).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

1 - Does their concept of Kingdom mean where gifts unvetoed are exchanged? Because if not, they are liable to misunderstand.

2 - I would have hoped to see more about the various kinds of contingency and necessity before going onto questions of palaeontology or law.

 

[helmut]

1 - Does their concept of Kingdom …

Who is »they«? You did not add any hint of which posting you answered to.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Who is »they«? You did not add any hint of which posting you answered to.

Apologies and thank you! I meant any christian teachers who mention a "kingdom of god" / "kingdom of heaven" / "household of god" concept.

It dovetails, in a general way, in at various points in this thread where "christian worldview" has been mentioned, including those dealing with the subject of law.

I hope we can make some connections between those elements of logic that have been explained so far, and their application in fields so far mentioned.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now, for some specific arguments, and their evaluations...

I use “Contradiction” or “X” to indicate a logical contradiction.

"==" is used to mean "the same identity"

Assumptions:
P: is a person
E: has an essence
I: has an identity (ID)
C: has a characteristic of….
————— ————-

Argument 1: (using the initial Assumptions, also)

I am a person. There exists Px
My neighbor is a person. There exists Ny

Therefore, I am my neighbor. x == y (this violates Existential Instantiation)
X

————— ————-

Argument 2:

V: x owns a vehicle y
I am a person. There exists Px
My neighbor is a person. There exists Py
I own a vehicle. Vxa
My neighbor owns a vehicle. Vyb

Therefore, I and my neighbor own the same vehicle. (a == b, violates Existential Instantiation, EI)
X

Therefore, I and my neighbor don’t own the same vehicle. (I can't prove this either, from the premises.)
X

This brings up the point, that different Persons MAY have the same characteristic.
And this is not represented in the initial premises, regarding owning a vehicle.
If we see “having the same vehicle” as a characteristic, then we can accommodate multiple Persons sharing ownership in the same vehicle.
(I don’t want to get into this level of detail, in the formal notation….)

 

[Stephen3141]

Argument 3:

Exe: x has the essence of being human
Px: x is a Person

I am a person. there exists Px
My neighbor is a person. there exists Nx
I have the essence of being Human. there exists Ex
My neighbor has the essence of being Human. there exists Ey

Therefore, I am my neighbor. (x == y, cannot be proven. This violates EI)
X

Therefore, I have the essence of being God.
X

Unless it can be proven that I have multiple Essences, by having multiple Natures,
if I have a Human essence,
one cannot prove (from these premises) that I have the essence (also) of divinity.

————— ————-

Argument 4:

Lxc: x likes chocolate ice cream

I am a person. Px
My neighbor is a person. Py
I like chocolate ice cream. Lxc

Therefore, my neighbor cannot like chocolate ice cream. (NOT Lyc)
X

Note that Persons may or may not share Characteristics.
Liking chocolate ice cream is a Characteristic.
From these premises, I cannot prove anything about the characteristics of my neighbor.

 

[Stephen3141]

(Note about the "pseudocode proofs...

In the pseudocode, I am assuming an approach of conditional proof.
This is a form of argument:

to prove Ax ==> Bx
assume Ax
demonstrate Bx

Therefore Ax ==> Bx

So, in argument 4,
assume Py
assume Px
assume Lxc

to prove: Py ==> Lxc

Py (assume) (Note that Conditional Proof, is a syllogism in the 20 rules of Inference...)
(try to prove Lxy)
(we can't prove Lxy)
(so, we can't prove Py ==> Lxy with the premises)

I am taking the shortcut to show that we can't prove Lxy,
which means we can't prove Py ==> Lxy

 

[Stephen3141]

Some more arguments to think about, from a Christian point of view...

————— ————-
Argument 5:

God has the essence of divinity.
Divinity is One, rather than being a type that is reduplicated among multiple Persons.
Divinity can involve multiple persons.
Persons involved in Divinity, may have some of the same characteristics.
Persons involved in Divinity, may have some characteristics that are not shared by other Persons involved in divinity.

Jesus had 2 natures/essences: one human, and one divine.

The Incarnation involves one Person, 2 essences, and multiple characteristics distributed among the 2 essences of “Jesus”.
The man Jesus, does not know all things.
Therefore, the man Jesus cannot be involved in the essence of divinity.
X

Considerations...
The Person Jesus, is able to do miracles.
Does this ability come through Jesus’ human nature, or his divine nature?
Therefore, the Person Jesus is all divine.
X

Therefore, the Person Jesus is all human.
X


The essence of being Human, involves many limitations.
Therefore, the man Jesus exhibits many limitations, in the gospels.

The Essence of divinity (biblically) share in the essence of One God.
(True)

Jesus had a divine Essence.
Therefore, Jesus was a separate god.
X

Jesus had a human essence, also.
Therefore, Jesus shares the Essence of all other humans.
X. (The Essence of “human” is a reduplicated characteristic, not One that has a numeric quantification of 1.)

Because “Jesus” had 2 different Essences/natures, with many different characteristics, we see the reason for orthodox Christian theologians to assert that the human nature of Jesus, and the divine nature of Jesus, are separate and “unmixed”.

————— —————

Argument 6:

I identify with being God.
Therefore, I have the Essence of divinity.
X

Consideration:
Regardless of how the younger generations in America think that whatever
they identify with, as being, is what they are,
the Bible presents regular human beings as being simply "human".

Note that there is a theological complication, in that the Holy Spirit may "dwell in"
a Christian.

Note that in the New Testament, we have texts that assert that the both Christ,
and regular Christians, somehow, share in divinity. But the doctrine of the
Trinity carefully avoids saying that a regular Christian, is divine.

8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.
9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, 10 and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Col 2:8–10.

4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 2 Pe 1:4.

————— —————

Argument 7:

I am a human being.
God adopted me, and now I am divine.
X

Note that the biblical language of adoption is often used , referring to the
People of God. But this does not mean that they become divine. That is
why the Conclusion does not follow from the premises.

————— —————

Argument 8:

I am a human being.
Somehow, the Holy Spirit lives in me.
Therefore, I am now divine.
X

Therefore, I know that I have 2 Persons.
X

Therefore, I no longer have free will as a human being.
X

Note that the Bible presents Christians as having the Holy Spirit
living in them. But this does not mean that they are divine.

"Persons" in the vocabulary of the trinitarian debates, involves
a separate mind and identity. There is no reason to argue that
having the indwelling Holy Spirit, makes us into 2 different
Persons.

Paul talks quite a bit about getting a renewed mind. But, he uses
the language of choice, regarding this. Paul does not present this
reality as some sort of divine determinism, that determines which
choices we will make, with regard to getting a renewed mind.
————— —————

As an exercise, try putting these arguments and Conclusions
into logical notation.