Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

Since an axiom is a statement that is presumed to be self-evident or true, then logic must apply to a series of axioms. While I accept that a creator exists, it does not follow that said creator interacts with all, or any of that creation or that any action is necessary to continue the existence of that which has been directly created or is simply a result of that creation.

May I ask if the “Creator” is a supernatural being?

If yes, a form of evidence for a supernatural being is found in the testimony within ancient myths. Apparently, humankind has sensed the supernatural in some form since it could look up to the sky when there is lightning and thunder. By the time of the Greek and Roman gods (my favorites since grade school), there were plenty of rituals, sacrifices, prayers, meditations, literature, temples, etc. which demonstrated the basic belief that there is a connection between the supernatural kingdom and human territory. Of course, we cannot forget Baal and the One God of the Hebrew people.

As for a Supernatural Creator sustaining His human creatures, enabling them to act, and thus attain their final goal, I suggest that this is part of the “almighty” feature of God. (Information source. CCC 301; CCC 396; CCC 1730) Personally, I do not see a reason to doubt it – probably because I am looking forward to the ice cream cones in heaven. Don’t tell anyone, but that was my description of heaven when I was a young’un. Today, I would add dark chocolate.

 

[grannymh]

Which I respect, though I do not believe in revelation.

Thank you for your respect.

 

[wmw]

You havn’t asked about “+'s”. or is it “+”'s.

Then In C programming I don’t have it quite right either as shown in this bit of C language instruction:

So what do you do if you have a pointer to a structure?

One way to do it
(*foo_ptr).size = new_size;

But there is a better way, specifically for this purpose: the pointer-to-member operator.

foo_ptr->size = new_size;

Where “->” is being used to offset the pointer to a location within a variable structure. Oh, bother, syntax, syntax, syntax. Can we be done with syntax now?

 

[oldcelt]

May I ask if the “Creator” is a supernatural being?

If yes, a form of evidence for a supernatural being is found in the testimony within ancient myths. Apparently, humankind has sensed the supernatural in some form since it could look up to the sky when there is lightning and thunder. By the time of the Greek and Roman gods (my favorites since grade school), there were plenty of rituals, sacrifices, prayers, meditations, literature, temples, etc. which demonstrated the basic belief that there is a connection between the supernatural kingdom and human territory. Of course, we cannot forget Baal and the One God of the Hebrew people.

As for a Supernatural Creator sustaining His human creatures, enabling them to act, and thus attain their final goal, I suggest that this is part of the “almighty” feature of God. (Information source. CCC 301; CCC 396; CCC 1730) Personally, I do not see a reason to doubt it – probably because I am looking forward to the ice cream cones in heaven. Don’t tell anyone, but that was my description of heaven when I was a young’un. Today, I would add dark chocolate.

The creator is certainly beyond my understanding in any real sense. I do not accept what is called “Divine Revelation” because that involves human interpretation of the unknowable. I prefer to observe the observable and take it from there.

 

[grannymh]

The creator is certainly beyond my understanding in any real sense. I do not accept what is called “Divine Revelation” because that involves human interpretation of the unknowable. I prefer to observe the observable and take it from there.

Your clarification makes sense.

I am tempted to say that Genesis 1: 26-27 is Divine Revelation that is observable. I believe it is observable because I believe that the human species is different in kind from other species.

 

[simpleas]

Earlier, you commented: “I would like to look toward A&E but I can’t, because I see a massive difference in their original nature as humans free from “the pains of this world”.”

Hopefully, there can be a recognition that a “massive difference in their original nature” is a speculation not in tune with Catholic teaching.

Regarding the qualification that they were free from “the pains of this world,” these are sweet words that are distracting. The reality is that Adam’s nature included a decomposing anatomy just like ours. The Catholic teaching is that God gave Adam the extra gift of immortality which simply means that Adam’s decomposing anatomy did not have to eventually die. Original Sin did not destroy Adam’s original human nature. The effects of Original Sin wounded human nature. One of the effects of Original Sin is that the extra gift of immortality was lost.

The extra gift of immortality did not change Adam’s material decomposing anatomy. It simply bypassed the final step of decomposing which happens to be bodily death.

The next question is – What did change in Adam? What changed is that his State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace was destroyed and replaced with the State of Original Sin.

One of the logical reasons for the reality of a single first Adam is that God’s promise of reconciliation (repairing the lost relationship between humanity and Divinity) includes every human person. Therefore, every person is so loved by God that He sent His only Son to redeem each individual. This is why we find comfort in our Good Shepherd.

So being created in goodness and being born good, but wounded in our human nature is no difference?

 

[simpleas]

I am very grateful that the concept of speculation has entered this thread. Please see post 933. All the words in bold are definitely speculations. These speculations are definitely opposed to Catholic teachings.

The speculation that we would never seek God and the speculation that there would be nothing to seek sound a tad like the speculations that God does not exist. Therefore, Genesis 1: 26-28 loses all its meaning within Catholicism. And the first three axioms of this thread are quietly denied.

Here are two of many references to God’s continual relationship with us. He definitely called Adam to seek Him in His glory. Even if Adam had not disobeyed, his descendants would still be seeking the existence of God in their lives.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
**356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.

**1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

​

We have to be very careful with speculations about the possibility **If A&E had never disobeyed. **We have to carefully avoid wrong impressions.

I had already addressed this in post # 929.

 

[wmw]

Yes, but are we adding these as axioms? Below I’ve added L3 as being derived from A3; in order to keep to Grannymh’s grand plan of just the initial 3.

Yet, When I tried to get to criteria 4, knowledge, I had to introduce a fact about sin. This compelled me to add A4. Sorry, Grannymh, but your 3 axioms just don’t seem to be enough, but is that such a disaster? Or, of course and I’m actually very likely to be quite wrong. I would like any restructuring or additions. I’ve also slipped in “enacted” into A4. in preparation of getting to C4. So, have I built solidly? please test with fire.

Axioms:
A1. God as Creator exists.
A2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
A3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
A4. Sin must be purposely enacted with knowledge of the consequences.

Logical deductions:
L1 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship (A2 + A3 → L1)
L2 = C1 = Friendship is in opposition to servitude thus Freedom is granted via an Opportunity to NOT be in friendship. (L1->L2 = C1)*
L3 = In order to interact God gives Adam a spirit and wisdom to begin to understand God. To interact and love God someone one must get to know Him. To know God is wisdom indirectly via relelation or His creation, but more so and directly a human may come to know God through prayer. (A3 → L3)
L4 = There is no sin without knowedge of sinning (A4), Adam is capable of knowing (L3) and God further interacts with Adam to inform him of the dire consequences of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowedge.(A3 → L3 → L4 = C2)

Criteria for Literal Original Sin:
C1 Opportunity to choose+
C2 Knowledge of choice +
C3 Intent to choose+
C4 act of completing choice by the whole of humanity

 

[grannymh]

So being created in goodness and being born good, but wounded in our human nature is no difference?

I am just getting out of bed. I do not understand who is different from whom and why.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but are we adding these as axioms? Below I’ve added L3 as being derived from A3; in order to keep to Grannymh’s grand plan of just the initial 3.

Yet, When I tried to get to criteria 4, knowledge, I had to introduce a fact about sin. This compelled me to add A4. Sorry, Grannymh, but your 3 axioms just don’t seem to be enough, but is that such a disaster? Or, of course and I’m actually very likely to be quite wrong. I would like any restructuring or additions. I’ve also slipped in “enacted” into A4. in preparation of getting to C4. So, have I built solidly? please test with fire.

I am just getting out of bed. Testing anything with fire would not be a safe idea.

It seems reasonable to put every possible axiom on the table, just like puzzle pieces. Then we fit the pieces together to get a final picture. However, the difference is that we may pitch some of the original puzzle pieces and/or we may find another piece in a different box.

 

[wmw]

I take this as an “any time you get to it forum”. Have a great morning, day, week, and address what you will when you will.

Chill out…

Yes, puzzles are great group projects. I’m trying to be patient on that “group” part.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Guys,

Would you accept as an axiom this statement: “God is free”?

I am not implying that this new axiom would help you to reach your desired conclusions, but…, if it is an axiom to you, perhaps you would need to consider it as a kind of restriction in your arguments.

 

[simpleas]

I am just getting out of bed. I do not understand who is different from whom and why.

Good morning.

I’ll put it another way, A&E had sanctifying grace, we are born without sanctifying grace, so while the biological nature of humans would be the same as A&E, the spiritual nature isn’t. We did not have the privilage of being born with sanctifying grace, unlike A&E. That is the difference, a major difference, a created human without sin able to be in complete friendship with the creator.

 

[wmw]

Guys,

Would you accept as an axiom this statement: “God is free”?

I am not implying that this new axiom would help you to reach your desired conclusions, but…, if it is an axiom to you, perhaps you would need to consider it as a kind of restriction in your arguments.

Well, it’s true, but as you say, how does it fit in? You’ve called being free a restriction?
I’m quite curious about that. Could you explain how being free restricts God?

You’ve said it won’t help. Is there an objection, I’m thinking of an objection as St. Thomas would write in the Summa T., that you could phrase from, “God is free”?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well, it’s true, but as you say, how does it fit in? You’ve called being free a restriction?
I’m quite curious about that. Could you explain how being free restricts God?

You’ve said it won’t help. Is there an objection, I’m thinking of an objection as St. Thomas would write in the Summa T., that you could phrase from, “God is free”?

It wouldn’t be a restriction for God. It would be a restriction for the deduction. If something depends on God’s free will, there is no possibility to deduce it.

Would you accept as an axiom this statement too: “Human beings are free”?

 

[wmw]

One must always consider what the definition of “God” is. We use this term and as part of it think of God as free. No, I don’t think we need to define every term so carefully as to make a point that God may act freely. Having to do this for every word we use would bog the process down and hide the core of the statements in long lists of the attributes of God and man.

To respond to “Human beings are free”?
We have already deduced that God has granted freedom to humanity in this statement:

L2 = C1 = Friendship is in opposition to servitude thus Freedom is granted via an Opportunity to NOT be in friendship. (L1->L2 = C1)

This was deduced from a desire of God to communicate with persons with free will. Otherwise, why would any rational being want to communicate to an automaton?

 

[fhansen]

Good morning.

I’ll put it another way, A&E had sanctifying grace, we are born without sanctifying grace, so while the biological nature of humans would be the same as A&E, the spiritual nature isn’t. We did not have the privilage of being born with sanctifying grace, unlike A&E. That is the difference, a major difference, a created human without sin able to be in complete friendship with the creator.

Except that the baptized also possess sanctifying grace. We, too, are in friendship with God, albeit probably not as intimate as they were. And, like them, we can always fall into sin, or back into sin.

 

[grannymh]

Good morning.

I’ll put it another way, A&E had sanctifying grace, we are born without sanctifying grace, so while the biological nature of humans would be the same as A&E, the spiritual nature isn’t. We did not have the privilage of being born with sanctifying grace, unlike A&E. That is the difference, a major difference, a created human without sin able to be in complete friendship with the creator.

Humans have only one nature. There is not a biological nature which could be inherited separately from a spiritual nature. Because of the oneness of human nature, there cannot be a different nature between parent and child.

Adam and Eve, being human, have only one nature. This one human nature is an unique unification of both the biological anatomy *and *the rational spiritual soul. Since we are human, each of us has only one nature which is the same nature that Adam and Eve had. Our human nature is a complete unique unification of spirit and matter.

I realize that our decomposing anatomy is inherited from our parents. This anatomy is the matter referred to in CCC 365. At conception, God directly creates the soul. Please notice the precise wording in bold in *CCC *365 below. We can get into trouble when we mess with those precise words.

The best way to grasp this is to carefully study paragraph 365, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

One must always consider what the definition of “God” is. We use this term and as part of it think of God as free. No, I don’t think we need to define every term so carefully as to make a point that God may act freely. Having to do this for every word we use would bog the process down and hide the core of the statements in long lists of the attributes of God and man.

To respond to “Human beings are free”?
We have already deduced that God has granted freedom to humanity in this statement:

L2 = C1 = Friendship is in opposition to servitude thus Freedom is granted via an Opportunity to NOT be in friendship. (L1->L2 = C1)

This was deduced from a desire of God to communicate with persons with free will.Otherwise, why would any rational being want to communicate to an automaton?

A long list? I am sure that it would be less extended than 1981 posts.

You are implicitly saying that we are indifferent in respect to God’s Essence, Goodness and Beauty, so that we can chose between Him and something else. You are also saying implicitly that between friendship and servitude there is no alternative, but there are other alternatives: God could very well take care of us without offering us His friendship; or He could be indifferent to us.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but are we adding these as axioms? Below I’ve added L3 as being derived from A3; in order to keep to Grannymh’s grand plan of just the initial 3.

Yet, When I tried to get to criteria 4, knowledge, I had to introduce a fact about sin. This compelled me to add A4. Sorry, Grannymh, but your 3 axioms just don’t seem to be enough, but is that such a disaster? Or, of course and I’m actually very likely to be quite wrong. I would like any restructuring or additions. I’ve also slipped in “enacted” into A4. in preparation of getting to C4. So, have I built solidly? please test with fire.

Axioms:
A1. God as Creator exists.
A2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
A3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
A4. Sin must be purposely enacted with knowledge of the consequences.

When it comes to A3., my old journalism training kicks in. I want to know who, how, what, when, where, and why God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. It is reasonable to look at A1. and conclude that God in order to be the Creator has to be a supernatural, all powerful, Person. A3. affirms the personal aspect and A2. affirms that the power, being infinite, can be extended.

To get to A4.,we first have to tangle with sin itself. We can posit that there has to be a first individual human in order to have subsequent humans. We can say that “interacts personally” is a relationship between two parties, God and the first individual human. This bit of reasoning is a way of affirming your proposal that A2. + A3. is necessary for L1. to be an answer to some of my “journalism” questions.

Using the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *paragraphs 356-357, we find that the Catholic Church is teaching what you are proposing. Reminder: please read CCC 20-21 for an explanation of the use of small print. The extra indentation indicates that it is in small print.
**356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.
**357 **Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
​

Logical deductions:
L1 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship (A2 + A3 → L1)

In my opinion, there is enough reasoning or evidence to support L1. God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. However, we need to find more answers before we can get to A4. Sin must be purposely enacted with knowledge of the consequences.

L2 = C1 = Friendship is in opposition to servitude thus Freedom is granted via an Opportunity to NOT be in friendship. (L1->L2 = C1)*

I am still having trouble remembering symbols. Does C stand for conclusion? Or what? In any case, I do not think that L2. is completely accurate based on CCC 396. Cross-references in the margin include CCC 301, *CCC *311, and my favorite *CCC *1730.

Links to the Catechism. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
**396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

I will stop here. The first sentence in *CCC *396 needs attention. In addition my computer is destroying my post, probably because of the length.

Please note that “A4. Sin must be purposely enacted with knowledge of the consequences.” is correct and it is essential. In my opinion, it is simply in the wrong place.