Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[grannymh]

From a brief review of threads in various CAF Forums, it is obvious that posters are having a hard time with the original relationship between the first human lovingly known as Adam and his Divine Creator. Thus, I hope readers will continue wmw’s discussion toward the end of the Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=891536 These valuable posts address the axioms and the criteria for Original Sin. Note: This thread was closed due to the 1,000 post limit.

In general, I prefer working with major truths known as axioms. Personally, I find that those basic syllogism examples are far too limiting. Google syllogism, axiom, and the deductive method of reasoning for a variety of definitions and examples.

Because of my brief review of Adam and Eve discussions, I have amended my original three axioms for this thread. Naturally, these are open for discussion.

Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

 

[Rhubarb]

So, first order logic is hard for me but I think this is a fair representation of what you want to say. If my symbols are off, I’ve provided what I’m trying to capture for those who are better at it than I am. The interpretation should be clear from the parenthetical, too.

1: (∃x Cx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator)
2: ∀x∀y Cx→(Hy^Ixy) (If anything is a Creator, then it interacts with all humans)
3: ∀x∀y Hy→(Hx^Iyx) (If anything is a human, then it interacts with a Creator)

Now, what conclusion are you trying to get to? We can see if the argument is valid with a deduction or truth tree.

(Edited to change around the conjunctions in the consequents of 2 and 3 for clarity’s sake)

 

[grannymh]

So, first order logic is hard for me but I think this is a fair representation of what you want to say. If my symbols are off, I’ve provided what I’m trying to capture for those who are better at it than I am. The interpretation should be clear from the parenthetical, too.

1: (∃x Cx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator)
2: ∀x∀y Cx→(Hy^Ixy) (If anything is a Creator, then it interacts with all humans)
3: ∀x∀y Hy→(Hx^Iyx) (If anything is a human, then it interacts with a Creator)

Now, what conclusion are you trying to get to? We can see if the argument is valid with a deduction or truth tree.

(Edited to change around the conjunctions in the consequents of 2 and 3 for clarity’s sake)

Good job. Thank you.

My conclusion would be a reasonable demonstration of what was involved in the original relationship between the first established human and God.

I sincerely respect your position as an Agnostic. Therefore, it is not necessary that you accept my demonstration as truth. What is necessary is that my demonstration is both reasonable deductive “logic” and it is understandable.

Here are some comments, not necessarily written in stone.

Working from granny’s proposed axiom, “God as Creator exists”, the major premise in post 2,
“1: (∃x Cx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator)”
is correct. However, the “Creator” needs an identifying name such as “God” as the one and only Creator. Because I intend to refer to God in various situations different from the act of creation, I need to establish the almighty God in the major premise.

The minor premise
“2: ∀x∀y Cx→(Hy^Ixy) (If anything is a Creator, then it interacts with all humans)”
is considered true because in my opinion, the probability of interaction is evinced in the major premise. God, by definition, is all powerful, etc. It is at this point, that I start to break away from the usual syllogism by referring to the “internal” major premise instead of providing external evidence such as Scripture citations.

The conclusion
“3: ∀x∀y Hy→(Hx^Iyx) (If anything is a human, then it interacts with a Creator)”
may not be considered as necessarily an universal truth. Rational humans have a choice to interact with God. Knowing about the idea of a God does not guarantee direct interaction on the part of a human. It seems to me that possible problems with the word interacts can be avoided by saying that human nature has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Note that this does not automatically eliminate other designations for God.

Thinking ahead to possible problems is why I feel limited when using a normal syllogism.

I am really interested in your comment and would like you to expand it.
“Now, what conclusion are you trying to get to? We can see if the argument is valid with a deduction or truth tree.”
I find myself looking at a tree with strong roots of truth

 

[Rhubarb]

Good job. Thank you.

My conclusion would be a reasonable demonstration of what was involved in the original relationship between the first established human and God.

I sincerely respect your position as an Agnostic. Therefore, it is not necessary that you accept my demonstration as truth. What is necessary is that my demonstration is both reasonable deductive “logic” and it is understandable.

Here are some comments, not necessarily written in stone.

Working from granny’s proposed axiom, “God as Creator exists”, the major premise in post 2,
“1: (∃x Cx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator)”
is correct. However, the “Creator” needs an identifying name such as “God” as the one and only Creator. Because I intend to refer to God in various situations different from the act of creation, I need to establish the almighty God in the major premise.

The minor premise
“2: ∀x∀y Cx→(Hy^Ixy) (If anything is a Creator, then it interacts with all humans)”
is considered true because in my opinion, the probability of interaction is evinced in the major premise. God, by definition, is all powerful, etc. It is at this point, that I start to break away from the usual syllogism by referring to the “internal” major premise instead of providing external evidence such as Scripture citations.

The conclusion
“3: ∀x∀y Hy→(Hx^Iyx) (If anything is a human, then it interacts with a Creator)”
may not be considered as necessarily an universal truth. Rational humans have a choice to interact with God. Knowing about the idea of a God does not guarantee direct interaction on the part of a human. It seems to me that possible problems with the word interacts can be avoided by saying that human nature has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Note that this does not automatically eliminate other designations for God.

Thinking ahead to possible problems is why I feel limited when using a normal syllogism.

I am really interested in your comment and would like you to expand it.
“Now, what conclusion are you trying to get to? We can see if the argument is valid with a deduction or truth tree.”
I find myself looking at a tree with strong roots of truth

I don’t think this is entirely necessary, though, because I think for the sake of the argument you can build “God” into the concept of “Creator.” (big C) If you wanted to anyhow, we could do so in at least two ways.

We can amend (1) and call it (1’) and it would read: (∃x Cx^Gx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator who is also God)

Or we can add another premise in, let’s call it 1.5 and put it between (1) and (2):
1.5: ∀x Cx→Gx (Anything that is a Creator is God)

I think what would help is if you added a few more premises - you might need them depending on what proposition you want your conclusion to be. (I don’t want to make assumptions about how much you know about formal logic, I don’t want to talk down to ya’) But if you had a solid conclusion sentence, we can then regiment it and see what you need as axiomatic to get to it. If there was one, we could use a truth tree to see if the overall argument is valid. Alternatively, we can take what you have as axioms already and see what we can derive from it with a natural deduction.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think this is entirely necessary, though, because I think for the sake of the argument you can build “God” into the concept of “Creator.” (big C) If you wanted to anyhow, we could do so in at least two ways.

We can amend (1) and call it (1’) and it would read: (∃x Cx^Gx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator who is also God)

Or we can add another premise in, let’s call it 1.5 and put it between (1) and (2):
1.5: ∀x Cx→Gx (Anything that is a Creator is God)

I think what would help is if you added a few more premises - you might need them depending on what proposition you want your conclusion to be. (I don’t want to make assumptions about how much you know about formal logic, I don’t want to talk down to ya’) But if you had a solid conclusion sentence, we can then regiment it and see what you need as axiomatic to get to it. If there was one, we could use a truth tree to see if the overall argument is valid. Alternatively, we can take what you have as axioms already and see what we can derive from it with a natural deduction.

 

[grannymh]

First things first.

(I don’t want to make assumptions about how much you know about formal logic, I don’t want to talk down to ya’)

After passing the toughest university logic course in the universe, the only thing I remember is that I said to myself that I would never remember what I learned. Deep inside I was hoping I would never have to use it. My strongest weak point is vocabulary definitions.

I don’t think this is entirely necessary, though, because I think for the sake of the argument you can build “God” into the concept of “Creator.” (big C) If you wanted to anyhow, we could do so in at least two ways.

We can amend (1) and call it (1’) and it would read: (∃x Cx^Gx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator who is also God)

Or we can add another premise in, let’s call it 1.5 and put it between (1) and (2):
1.5: ∀x Cx→Gx (Anything that is a Creator is God)

Let’s amend (1) to (There exists one and only one Creator Who is also God) because this is a solid statement with no apparent wiggle room. If I were on the other side of the debate over our friend Adam, I would immediately jump on the word anything as implying that there are lots of choices. I would follow up with the implication that the Creator is a “thing.”

I think what would help is if you added a few more premises - you might need them depending on what proposition you want your conclusion to be. (I don’t want to make assumptions about how much you know about formal logic, I don’t want to talk down to ya’) But if you had a solid conclusion sentence, we can then regiment it and see what you need as axiomatic to get to it. If there was one, we could use a truth tree to see if the overall argument is valid. Alternatively, we can take what you have as axioms already and see what we can derive from it with a natural deduction.

Premise is a good example of my need for usage definitions. Being a lady Rip Van Winkle, I have not yet figured out that a minor premise or major premise (?) can be more than one. That is why I liked axioms. I could posit all I needed as long as they were considered solid truth.

Also, I need to learn what a “truth tree” is

I do have a solid temporary conclusion; but being fascinated by natural science, I need to follow its basic principle – observe without prejudice. Being one who loves to rush in where angels fear to tread, I will skip caution and take my chances with natural deduction. Besides, following proper deduction methods (need the formal words) will give people with different world views a chance to express what they consider reasonable or possible truth. However, all of us need to respect the fact that eventually, I will be using Catholic teachings as the umpire. One can still accept or reject. CAF allows “instant replay”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see the need for " logicical " contortions, Aquinas used philosophy and that will give us much that we can know about either God or a Creator ( which Aquinas proves can only be God ). Aquinas reaches God as Creator. This means man has a creator, but I don’t see that this implies a first man. Science seems to point to a first man. But I think it is only through Revelation that we can know there was a first man. But Aquinas does prove through philosophy that his God is a personal God - but you have to read a lot of philsophy to get to that point.

Linus2nd

 

[Rhubarb]

Well, all of Aquinas’ arguments can be regimented into formal logic - indeed that’s how we know his arguments are valid.

My question about asking for what conclusion you want to show is because “the original relationship between Adam and God” is a very vague thing - it could be a lot of things. Which means, as I see it, what you want to do is start from your three premises and see what else you can deduce from them. However, with those three premises we can only talk in limited terms about the concepts of human, God, Creator, and interaction. Any predicate (like “x is God” or “x is a Creator” or “x interacts with y” ) that we want to see in the conclusion needs to be introduced as a premise - provided what we want to do is work with a formal deduction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, all of Aquinas’ arguments can be regimented into formal logic - indeed that’s how we know his arguments are valid.

My question about asking for what conclusion you want to show is because “the original relationship between Adam and God” is a very vague thing - it could be a lot of things. Which means, as I see it, what you want to do is start from your three premises and see what else you can deduce from them. However, with those three premises we can only talk in limited terms about the concepts of human, God, Creator, and interaction. Any predicate (like “x is God” or “x is a Creator” or “x interacts with y” ) that we want to see in the conclusion needs to be introduced as a premise - provided what we want to do is work with a formal deduction.

By regimenting the argument into formal logic you bypass many, most who have no training in it and who care even less about it. The point I wish to make is that whether or not there was a first man, Adam, depends on the truth value of Revelation. It cannot be established through either philosophy or formal logic. Science does offer some hints in that direction, but nothing absolutely certain. All philosophy can do is show that the God it reasons to created man and that this Creator is a personal God.

I guess I have lost the purpose of this thread about 2,000 posts ago. If Adam existed, and I am sure he did, he was a rational being and had a personal relationship with his creator. And Aquinas established that only God can be a creator. So, what is the point of this thread? What is it that we are trying to establish?

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

By regimenting the argument into formal logic you bypass many, most who have no training in it and who care even less about it. The point I wish to make is that whether or not there was a first man, Adam, depends on the truth value of Revelation. It cannot be established through either philosophy or formal logic. Science does offer some hints in that direction, but nothing absolutely certain. All philosophy can do is show that the God it reasons to created man and that this Creator is a personal God.

I guess I have lost the purpose of this thread about 2,000 posts ago. If Adam existed, and I am sure he did, he was a rational being and had a personal relationship with his creator. And Aquinas established that only God can be a creator. So, what is the point of this thread? What is it that we are trying to establish?

Linus2nd

From a brief review of threads in various CAF Forums, it is obvious that posters are having a hard time with the original relationship between the first human lovingly known as Adam and his Divine Creator.

How do you describe the original relationship between the first human and the Divine Creator?

Hint. A basic description of the original relationship can easily follow from this sentence in post 8.
“All philosophy can do is show that the God it reasons to created man and that this Creator is a personal God.”
Another hint. I have often thought that the Aquinas statement “And Aquinas established that only God can be a creator.” is critical in the relationship between the Maker of the garden and the gardener who couldn’t keep his hands off some specific organic fruit.

From the above, there is the simple truth that the original relationship is between two persons of unequal status. There can be many humans because these are creatures. There can only be one true God Who has the power to create. It is here that we need to consider Divine Revelation.

From post 1, Premise or axiom 2.
“God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.”
So far I have not replied Rhubarb’s comment in post 4.
“I think what would help is if you added a few more premises - you might need them depending on what proposition you want your conclusion to be.”
Hint to Rhubarb. I am looking forward to understanding a “truth tree.”

From post 7.
“However, with those three premises we can only talk in limited terms about the concepts of human, God, Creator, and interaction.”

When it comes to limited terms, this cranky granny may have unlimited ideas.

 

[Rhubarb]

So far I have not replied Rhubarb’s comment in post 4.
“I think what would help is if you added a few more premises - you might need them depending on what proposition you want your conclusion to be.”
Hint to Rhubarb. I am looking forward to understanding a “truth tree.”

From post 7.
“However, with those three premises we can only talk in limited terms about the concepts of human, God, Creator, and interaction.”

When it comes to limited terms, this cranky granny may have unlimited ideas.

Again I apologize if I’m talking down to/mansplaining/stating the obvious or anything like that. I don’t know how much everyone knows about formal logic.

Regarding truth trees: A truth tree is a mechanical process that a logician uses to assess a completed argument (With premises and a conclusion) for various logical properties such as: validity, consistency, quantifcational truth and falsity (don’t worry about the lingo, for our purposes it’s not important and I’ll be happy to explain more in PMs) etc. It gets at the logical structure of sentences and makes explicit things like contradictions.

Regarding terms: Arguments are valid depending on how their terms relate to one another. These terms I’ve called “concepts” and “predicates” thus far but they mean (in this sense) the same thing. From (1’) I used the logical phrase Cx^Gx. This sentence has two predicates C and G. C stands for “is the Creator” and G stands for “is God.” So the sentence ∃x Cx^Gx translates to “there is some x such that the x is both the Creator and God” x being just a variable like it is in algebra. So, if we’re starting with (1’) (2) and (3) as premises, the conclusions we draw are limited to the predicates (terms/concepts) that we start with. These are the only concepts the argument deals with. So if you want to say something about men being mortal perhaps, you’d have to introduce a premise that uses the predicate “is mortal.” It all depends on what conclusion you’re driving for ahead of time.

And because of the above, I tend to agree with Linus - I don’t know what logic is going to do to get to that original relationship between God and Adam. Except confuse people who aren’t trained in formal logic. I think think the relationship is stipulated, not derived. That is to say, we’re told what the relationship between God and Adam is - the relationship doesn’t follow from prior information. I’m just a big ol’ logic nerd and am always happy to look at sentences and arguments for their logical structure.

If we add the sentence 4: Adam is human (Ha) then by using the 3 premises given we can start deriving a relationship between God and Adam logically.

By 2 and 4 we can conclude that the Creator interacts with Adam.
By 3 and 4 we can conclude that Adam interacts with the Creator.

We would have to add more premises to know anything more about Adam though in this particular argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From a brief review of threads in various CAF Forums, it is obvious that posters are having a hard time with the original relationship between the first human lovingly known as Adam and his Divine Creator.

How do you describe the original relationship between the first human and the Divine Creator?

Hint. A basic description of the original relationship can easily follow from this sentence in post 8.
“All philosophy can do is show that the God it reasons to created man and that this Creator is a personal God.”
Another hint. I have often thought that the Aquinas statement “And Aquinas established that only God can be a creator.” is critical in the relationship between the Maker of the garden and the gardener who couldn’t keep his hands off some specific organic fruit.

From the above, there is the simple truth that the original relationship is between two persons of unequal status. There can be many humans because these are creatures. There can only be one true God Who has the power to create. It is here that we need to consider Divine Revelation.

From post 1, Premise or axiom 2.
“God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.”
So far I have not replied Rhubarb’s comment in post 4.
“I think what would help is if you added a few more premises - you might need them depending on what proposition you want your conclusion to be.”
Hint to Rhubarb. I am looking forward to understanding a “truth tree.”

From post 7.
“However, with those three premises we can only talk in limited terms about the concepts of human, God, Creator, and interaction.”

When it comes to limited terms, this cranky granny may have unlimited ideas.

What I am trying to find out is what are you trying to establish? I’m looking for a statement. Something like, " God created the first man, Adam, a rational creature with a free will, after his own image, from whom he founded the human race and with whom he established a covenant of love, by which Adam was to prove his love for God and earn an eternal reward." Then the viewers could then challenge this or support it, explaining their reasons.

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

What I am trying to find out is what are you trying to establish? I’m looking for a statement. Something like, " God created the first man, Adam, a rational creature with a free will, after his own image, from whom he founded the human race and with whom he established a covenant of love, by which Adam was to prove his love for God and earn an eternal reward." Then the viewers could then challenge this or support it, explaining their reasons.

Linus2nd

I am out of breath with that statement.

I am happy with this statement.
The original relationship is between two persons of unequal status.

Do you wish to challenge it or support it?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am out of breath with that statement.

I am happy with this statement.
The original relationship is between two persons of unequal status.

Do you wish to challenge it or support it?

Ha, you should have taken a poll. Of course I agree with it because it comports with Genesis and the rest of the Old and New Testaments. But Rhubarb and others would certainly challenge it. And we cannot use philosophy to any great extent, depends on what objections are raised. Most or our defence would be from Scripture and from the Catechism and other documents. All I hope is that we don’t get into formal logic ,

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

Ha, you should have taken a poll. Of course I agree with it because it comports with Genesis and the rest of the Old and New Testaments. But Rhubarb and others would certainly challenge it. And we cannot use philosophy to any great extent, depends on what objections are raised. Most or our defence would be from Scripture and from the Catechism and other documents. All I hope is that we don’t get into formal logic ,

Linus2nd

And as OP, I hope we get into formal logic. I just checked the two first Adam & Logic threads which have continued to have views after their closure. Taken together, the two now have 101,944 views. I follow the ratio between CAF Members and Guests listed as “Currently Active Users” at the bottom of the Forum page. It is reasonable to assume that some guests have a current interest in logic. According to Google, logic is considered as a branch of philosophy. Here I am.

Please,
*This is not one of those either - or * threads.

From post 5. “However, all of us need to respect the fact that eventually, I will be using Catholic teachings as the umpire.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And as OP, I hope we get into formal logic. I just checked the two first Adam & Logic threads which have continued to have views after their closure. Taken together, the two now have 101,944 views. I follow the ratio between CAF Members and Guests listed as “Currently Active Users” at the bottom of the Forum page. It is reasonable to assume that some guests have a current interest in logic. According to Google, logic is considered as a branch of philosophy. Here I am.

Please,
*This is not one of those either - or * threads.

From post 5. “However, all of us need to respect the fact that eventually, I will be using Catholic teachings as the umpire.”

Logic is something every person usese each day, without it we couldn’t do anything intelligent. But every day logic is quite different from the formal logic you have in mind. And though I have read a lot of Aristotle and Aquinas I have not spent much time on logic and don’t plan on taking a course in it. A lot of folks will feel the same. Most people would rather just use ordinary language to make their points.

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

**Again I apologize if I’m talking down to/mansplaining/stating the obvious or anything like that. I don’t know how much everyone knows about formal logic. **

Please refer to post 14.

As the OP, I confess that I have forgotten what I learned about formal logic. I do recall that logic was taught as a skill for determining truth. One thing which stuck in my mind all these years is this statement. All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass. That bit of misunderstanding is just as bad as some of the misunderstandings of the first three chapters of Genesis and subsequently the Catholic doctrines flowing from these chapters.

As a former journalist (who, how what, when, where, and why), my gut instinct tells me that the skills of logic need to be harnessed as another valuable way to pull out the truth about events at the dawn of human history.

It is certainly proper to respond to me even though in today’s world not many people are trained in formal logic.

Regarding truth trees: A truth tree is a mechanical process that a logician uses to assess a completed argument (With premises and a conclusion) for various logical properties such as: validity, consistency, quantifcational truth and falsity (don’t worry about the lingo, for our purposes it’s not important and I’ll be happy to explain more in PMs) etc. It gets at the logical structure of sentences and makes explicit things like contradictions.

Regarding terms: Arguments are valid depending on how their terms relate to one another. These terms I’ve called “concepts” and “predicates” thus far but they mean (in this sense) the same thing. From (1’) I used the logical phrase Cx^Gx. This sentence has two predicates C and G. C stands for “is the Creator” and G stands for “is God.” So the sentence ∃x Cx^Gx translates to “there is some x such that the x is both the Creator and God” x being just a variable like it is in algebra. So, if we’re starting with (1’) (2) and (3) as premises, the conclusions we draw are limited to the predicates (terms/concepts) that we start with. These are the only concepts the argument deals with. So if you want to say something about men being mortal perhaps, you’d have to introduce a premise that uses the predicate “is mortal.” It all depends on what conclusion you’re driving for ahead of time.

And because of the above, I tend to agree with Linus - I don’t know what logic is going to do to get to that original relationship between God and Adam. Except confuse people who aren’t trained in formal logic. I think think the relationship is stipulated, not derived. That is to say, we’re told what the relationship between God and Adam is - the relationship doesn’t follow from prior information. I’m just a big ol’ logic nerd and am always happy to look at sentences and arguments for their logical structure.

If we add the sentence 4: Adam is human (Ha) then by using the 3 premises given we can start deriving a relationship between God and Adam logically.

By 2 and 4 we can conclude that the Creator interacts with Adam.
By 3 and 4 we can conclude that Adam interacts with the Creator.

We would have to add more premises to know anything more about Adam though in this particular argument.

The paragraph about truth trees sounds like what I forgot. Odd question. The number 5 sticks in my mind. Are there five ways truth trees can be presented?

I need to absorb the rest of the information.

 

[Rhubarb]

Logic is simply the structure of argument. We do use it in our day to day thinking and it comes quite natural. Formal logic just takes that day to day thinking and regiments it out in a way that makes all the relationships between concepts that we use in our natural languages explicit. Take for example this line of reasoning. “I am hungry, so I should go to the kitchen and get something to eat.” We can formalize that into a premise-conclusion argument, perhaps like this:

Premise 1: I am hungry.
Premise 2: If I am hungry, I should get food.
Conclusion 1: I should get food.
Premise 3: If I should get food, I should go to the kitchen and get something to eat.​

Conclusion 2: I should go to the kitchen and get something to eat.

The argument is valid because C1 follows from P1 and P2, and C2 follows from C1 and P3. Both by modus ponens. The argument captures (I think at least) all of what is being said in the sentence of natural language. I didn’t bother translating to symbolic logic, because that’s tedious and I’m not especially good at it. It should also be noted that there are many types of logic - logic is just a language where we stipulate all the rules.

As to the purpose of the OP - we can use logic to look at the relationship between concepts between and within the sentences that are used to make an argument for what the original relationship between humanity and the divinity is but it’ll need to be in a complete form to analyze as I did above. We don’t necessarily need to regiment everything into symbols to do this - doing so just brings out the nuances of what is being said. Linus is right when he asks what you are trying to establish - that’s the conclusion of an argument. And from that conclusion we can see what premises we need to get to it, and if the conclusion follows from said premises. If the conclusion you want is something like, God created the first man, Adam, a rational creature with a free will, after his own image, from whom he founded the human race and with whom he established a covenant of love, by which Adam was to prove his love for God and earn an eternal reward. you’re looking at a lot of premises and a very, very long argument in premise-conclusion form. The danger is that valid arguments with many premises open themselves up to many avenues of attack.

Thankfully, I think there are better routes you can take. Logical argument is deductive reasoning. We have induction and abduction in our tool chest, too, to make the case for the relationship between Adam and God. Induction being what we’re used to seeing in science, and abduction being the so-called “argument to the best explanation.” Typically when I see modern religious arguments they come in the form of abductions - We see x, y, and z in the world and the best explanation for these observations is that God exists and has these certain properties of a, b, and c.

I’ve said a mouthful, some might be far afield. But I think my point is that there are good ways to talk about the relationship between Adam and God that doesn’t rely on formal logic, but is still supported by respectable forms of reasoning.

 

[Rhubarb]

Please refer to post 14.

As the OP, I confess that I have forgotten what I learned about formal logic. I do recall that logic was taught as a skill for determining truth. One thing which stuck in my mind all these years is this statement. All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass. That bit of misunderstanding is just as bad as some of the misunderstandings of the first three chapters of Genesis and subsequently the Catholic doctrines flowing from these chapters.

As a former journalist (who, how what, when, where, and why), my gut instinct tells me that the skills of logic need to be harnessed as another valuable way to pull out the truth about events at the dawn of human history.

It is certainly proper to respond to me even though in today’s world not many people are trained in formal logic.

The paragraph about truth trees sounds like what I forgot. Odd question. The number 5 sticks in my mind. Are there five ways truth trees can be presented?

I need to absorb the rest of the information.

Well, it’s generally reckoned that the operators of logic are truth-preserving. That is to say that if sentence A is true, and sentence B is true, then the sentence A&B is guaranteed to be true. The truth of sentences can be discovered based on the truth of its component parts. So, “A&B” is true if and only if “A” and “B” are both true. “A^B” (A or B) is true if either A or B is true. “~A” (not-A, or, it is not the case that A) is true if and only if A is false. And so on.

I think the five you are remembering is the five logical connectives that are most often used in formal logic - negation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional, and bi-conditional. A&B is the sentences A and B conjoined by the connective “and.” Disjunction is generally reckoned to be “or”, conditional is the “If-then” statement, and bi-conditional is the “if-and-only-if” statement. Negation is the “not” statement. There’s a whole lot more connectives that can be used, but I have no experience in them. I’m told they’re used a lot in computer programming. Then there’s also quantifiers (the upside down A and the backwards E) and modal operators, too. And probably a lot more.

This is all just a logic primer though - it doesn’t touch on the relationship between humanity and the Divine. I’d be happy to talk about this more in PMs so we don’t get off-track. Though please bear with me, it’s final exams coming up.

 

[grannymh]

Logic is something every person usese each day, without it we couldn’t do anything intelligent. But every day logic is quite different from the formal logic you have in mind. And though I have read a lot of Aristotle and Aquinas I have not spent much time on logic and don’t plan on taking a course in it. A lot of folks will feel the same. Most people would rather just use ordinary language to make their points.

Linus2nd

I can multitask.

Wisdom is usually in ordinary language. However, I did not use the CAF ordinary thread titles regarding the events at the beginning of human history. Thus, my own wisdom is challenged. Therefore, you are correct that most people would rather just use ordinary language to make their points. All CAF members are free to post as they wish.