Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

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.

I am still thinking about the statement “God is free” Here is an interesting *CCC *paragraph. Eventually, I can see that the fact of human freedom will be important evidence.
**CCC 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.
​

 

[grannymh]

Continuation from wmw post 980

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)*

I started addressing these in my post 992.

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)

This does follow A3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. It answers some of the who, how, what, when, where, and why questions . My suggestion would be to say – In order to interact with His human creature, God creates Adam with a rational spiritual soul. The rest of L3 sounds like necessary requirements which is good. I was surprised by the addition of “a human may come to know God through prayer.” Somewhere that point needs to be expanded.

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)

This gives me the idea of using Genesis verses directly.

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

The first three criteria are essential. Would you explain C4?

I am concerned about the fact that we are getting close to the 1,000 limit of posts. It appears that we have most of the elements to get us to a literal Original Sin. Obviously, Original Sin needs an Original human to freely commit it.

Once the necessity of an Original human is established, we have the necessary literal reality of Adam and Eve as founders of the human species.

 

[grannymh]

My original post is 924.
Below is post 929 by simpleas who recently referred back to post 929.

To be honest I think you exaggerated in your questions to my post. If you read it again I said we would know it all, be in constant relation with God and creation. If they had remained eating of the tree of life they remain with God’s word, they would not need to seek God as it is referred to in the CCC, that is education for us as Christians in aiding us to understand who God is, how to seek him etc. This knowledge would be a part of A&E because there was no sin.
However it seems they would have needed to keep eating from the tree of life (staying close to God) until they achieved their rightful place in God, BV.

Instead of repeating and repeating the correct Catholic teachings about God’s commandment of obedience which involved another tree, I am going to use this speculative post as a totally necessary reason for Axiom 4.

The basic misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, represented in post 929, have to be compared to the fact that God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human (Axiom A3.) and to the fact that each individual human has the capacity to interact personally with God as Creator. It is obvious from the first three chapters of Genesis and relevant Catholic teachings that the original relationship of Adam with his Creator is a two-way street.

Consequently, Axiom 4 must be in harmony with Axiom A3.

A3. and A4. should be seen as two halves of a whole which involves two entirely different beings, a transcendent Pure Spirit and a material creature who is known as a spiritual being because of his nature, spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy, and his destiny to share in the life of his Maker. Axiom 4. could simply be the reverse of A3.

Axiom 4. Each individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

This opens the door to the deductive truths presented by wmw.

 

[wmw]

C’s are for criteria to meet the possibility of Literal Original Sin.

In summary I’m taking that you would change the wording of the first part of

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)

This part: “In order to interact God gives Adam a spirit and wisdom to begin to understand God.”

Replacing it with “God creates Adam with a rational spiritual soul.”

L3 = God creates Adam with a rational spiritual soul. To interact and love God someone one must get to know Him. To know God is wisdom indirectly via revelation or His creation, but more so and directly a human may come to know God through prayer. (A3 → L3)

Yes, this is improved, I was trying to go further with L3 at first writing, but backed off and had to add L4. L3 in support of L4 looks much better with your change.

The first part of CCC 396, God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. Seems to have arrived without enough support particularly when supporting L2 and its presumption of a limit to only a choice of friendship or servitude. Grannymh and JuanFlorencio seem to be saying this needs a lot of work. Yes, what shall we do about that.

On this statement from JuanFlorencio:

we are indifferent in respect to God’s Essence, Goodness and Beauty, so that we can chose between Him and something else

On the contrary we are trying to build an argument that in-spite of Adam’s full knowledge of God’s Essence, Goodness and Beauty he choose his own way rather God’s. Though a full development of all of God’s Essence, Goodness and Beauty is infinitely exhaustive; so, I don’t want to start down that path except to pull out an essential element for our goal.

Yet I’m sure I don’t know quite everything you might mean by this; so, if a particular aspect such as God’s being free is important in our goal to understanding Original Sin and it’s being a literal reality I’d like to see how you would add it to the statements we’ve developed.

 

[wmw]

Oh, well of course Adam didn’t have truly full knowledge, but at least as adequate as we might have with our Catholic teachings in hindsight.

On running out of the 1000: It appears that the initial 3 Axioms took the first 1000. We are barely starting the first ~3 logical and ~4 criteria statements. Of course, much has been said about all of this for much of the time, but having them laid out in a single list of statements I think has quicken the pace of progress. I would hope we could get much farther in the first 200 of the third edition. I hope Grannymh is inclined to spawn that edition when ready.

 

[grannymh]

Oh, well of course Adam didn’t have truly full knowledge, but at least as adequate as we might have with our Catholic teachings in hindsight.

On running out of the 1000: It appears that the initial 3 Axioms took the first 1000. We are barely starting the first ~3 logical and ~4 criteria statements. Of course, much has been said about all of this for much of the time, but having them laid out in a single list of statements I think has quicken the pace of progress. I would hope we could get much farther in the first 200 of the third edition. I hope Grannymh is inclined to spawn that edition when ready.

I have been considering the necessity (and the fun) of a Third Edition. By the way, I love to find a way to use the word spawn.

Technically, anything to do with Adam is proper on an Adam thread. The number of views for this thread and the original thread tell me that there is high interest in both the topic and in Adam himself. At this point, I know that both interests cannot be done efficiently in a single thread.

Personally, I would rather defend Adam on other threads and keep the “logic” thread for deductive reasoning. Maybe then I will have a chance to slap him upside the head. However, I am not sure how that can be done since practically Adam belongs in both threads.

One possible solution is for me to start a separate thread in the Sacred Scripture Forum titled “Collection of misunderstandings and bad speculations about our friends Adam and Eve”

 

[wmw]

To capture the current state of what we’ve done so far in my short-hand style I will copy the statements as I see them currently and, of course, quite still in the act of reorganization:

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.

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 = God creates Adam with a rational spiritual soul. (A3 → L3)
L4 = There is no sin without knowledge 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 Knowledge of Good and Evil.(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

?? Sin must be purposely enacted with knowledge of the consequences.
?? To interact and love God someone one must get to know Him. To know God is wisdom indirectly via revelation or His creation, but more so and directly a human may come to know God through prayer.

Oh yes, I also was to explain my reasoning about C4, I sort of threw this out with a couple of things in mind, but wanted to have them in print.

C4(a) A sin has to be committed by an action. Adam’s mulling over if he should abandon God is not enough; he has to do something contrary to obedience and to live out his choice.

C4(b) All of humanity must participate; Not just in the descendants of Adam, but also in cooperation and the full commitment of Eve.

Yet, they should not stay as (a) & (b), but be better stated and written as C4 & C5.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you, Thank you

To everyone who took the time to contribute to this thread.

:flowers: :flowers::flowers::flowers:

 

[grannymh]

To our Readers, CAF Members and Guests,

In grade school, when I learned about the life of Adam, the facts seemed so simple. When I landed on CAF, I was totally surprised to find out that some people were saying that Adam did not exist. Recently, a few years back, I discovered the meaning of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”
Frankly, I am so grateful that a public profile only shows the recent 1,500 posts. Some of my early posts defending my friends Adam and Eve …
Come to think of it, some of my current posts…:blushing:

Needless to say, I have learned a lot since I was researching Transubstantiation. Google landed me in the middle of a CAF thread and I could not figure out how to exit. My only hope was a sign asking me to register. I registered, escaped, and here I am back on my own free will.

The more I listened to the yes and no to Adam and Eve, the more curiosity took over. Considering that my last biology class was in high school and my afternoon nap was at the same time as my university beginning Catholic theology class which was required, I have had a lot of catching up. Despite my stumbling, I learned a lot from posters on CAF and from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition and from the first three chapters of Genesis. I absolutely want to continue our conversations in a third thread after a brief break. There is so much more waiting for me to learn.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

1,000 posts = thread closed.

Thanks for participating. Feel free to start a new thread.