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

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Of course, they can respond in Sandscrit, Greek, even Latin. The point is that very few, if any, will understand what they say. The same is true of formal logic. So if you want a discussion between very few individuals, that is the way to go. But as you say, they may do so if they wish.

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

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.

And I need some time to change part of my life style so I can live to 104.

You have asked for a conclusion. Only I do not know how to translate my goal into conclusion terminology. My goal is that in order to properly understand Original Sin and its surrounding doctrines, there has to be a complete understanding of the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. In other words, I see the original relationship between humanity and Divinity as the necessary foundation for Original Sin to actually happen.

At the moment, in my humble opinion, I have three strong premises.

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.

I do appreciate that you are putting these into logic language.

What I see happening is that additional truths can flow from these initial premises and maybe from a fourth and fifth. For me, the best way to test my hypothesis is to use the logic primer. I would prefer to let go of any pre-conceived results. I want to give my natural curiosity freedom. As I yield to stating a desired conclusion, I now find the problem of a goal described above. I have had worse problems like being locked in an outhouse and I have survived.

Since your final exams are coming up and I really need to form some good health habits, would it be possible that I take a break?

Regarding this thread and ordinary language. I personally use the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *It is a great resource. I keep a list of pertinent paragraphs and will share these at any time. I also like to use the dramatic shift from Genesis 1:25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

 

[Rhubarb]

And I need some time to change part of my life style so I can live to 104.

You have asked for a conclusion. Only I do not know how to translate my goal into conclusion terminology. My goal is that in order to properly understand Original Sin and its surrounding doctrines, there has to be a complete understanding of the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. In other words, I see the original relationship between humanity and Divinity as the necessary foundation for Original Sin to actually happen.

At the moment, in my humble opinion, I have three strong premises.

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.

I do appreciate that you are putting these into logic language.

What I see happening is that additional truths can flow from these initial premises and maybe from a fourth and fifth. For me, the best way to test my hypothesis is to use the logic primer. I would prefer to let go of any pre-conceived results. I want to give my natural curiosity freedom. As I yield to stating a desired conclusion, I now find the problem of a goal described above. I have had worse problems like being locked in an outhouse and I have survived.

Since your final exams are coming up and I really need to form some good health habits, would it be possible that I take a break?

Regarding this thread and ordinary language. I personally use the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *It is a great resource. I keep a list of pertinent paragraphs and will share these at any time. I also like to use the dramatic shift from Genesis 1:25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

We can put the argument into premise-conclusion form without resorting to symbolic logic, no worries there. Using the premises you have thus far, to talk about Original Sin and the surrounding doctrines you need to introduce more premises that contain those concepts. So far, the only conclusions we can draw are conclusion statements that involve the concepts of “God”, “Creator”, “interaction”, “humans” and perhaps some of the qualifiers like “inherent” and “capacity”, but I think those qualifiers aren’t distinct from the concepts they’re attached to thus far the way things are written.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

1: (∃x Cx)^(∀y Cy →y=x) (There exists one and only one Creator)

The creation of the universe is history, either at least One God created the universe, or there is no God at all. If I think the probability of God existing is 51 percent or possibly 70 percent, that really means I don’t have to do anything about it.

The probable God cannot exist, it’s yes or no?

If God exists fully and totally, then I should really do something.

 

[Rhubarb]

The creation of the universe is history, either at least One God created the universe, or there is no God at all. If I think the probability of God existing is 51 percent or possibly 70 percent, that really means I don’t have to do anything about it.

The probable God cannot exist, it’s yes or no?

If God exists fully and totally, then I should really do something.

I don’t follow.

 

[wmw]

We can put the argument into premise-conclusion form without resorting to symbolic logic, no worries there. Using the premises you have thus far, to talk about Original Sin and the surrounding doctrines you need to introduce more premises that contain those concepts. So far, the only conclusions we can draw are conclusion statements that involve the concepts of “God”, “Creator”, “interaction”, “humans” and perhaps some of the qualifiers like “inherent” and “capacity”, but I think those qualifiers aren’t distinct from the concepts they’re attached to thus far the way things are written.

The goal as far as I understand is to show that Original Sin is a literal reality in contrast to the complete text of the first 3 chapters of Genesis that is written in a figurative style.
The Catholic Church definition of Original Sin:

Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

 

[grannymh]

Apparently, I thought it would be obvious that the original relationship between humanity and Divinity would be the original one which originally was before Adam freely disobeyed God. I was wrong.

Another mistake is that I thought this sentence in post 1 was understandable.
“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.”

My goal is simply to deduce what that original relationship entailed.

Looking forward, I believe that a true understanding of this real special friendship relationship will help people to better understand the real Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

The goal as far as I understand is to show that Original Sin is a literal reality in contrast to the complete text of the first 3 chapters of Genesis that is written in a figurative style.
The Catholic Church definition of Original Sin:
Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

As I recall. In the past I have suggested that the basic axioms can lead to the reality of Original Sin. Apparently, I thought “can lead to” was different from “is a literal reality.” I was wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Apparently, I thought it would be obvious that the original relationship between humanity and Divinity would be the original one which originally was before Adam freely disobeyed God. I was wrong.

Another mistake is that I thought this sentence in post 1 was understandable.
“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.”

My goal is simply to deduce what that original relationship entailed.

Looking forward, I believe that a true understanding of this real special friendship relationship will help people to better understand the real Original Sin.

Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace. When they sinned they lost sanctifying grace and that deprived their offspring of the scantifying grace also. So though their offspring did not sin themselves, they were born without sanctifying grace. That is what the Church teaches. I don’t think I can provide the theological arguments by which the Church reached these concludions. But they are based on Scripture. Is this the kind of response you are looking for?

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace. When they sinned they lost sanctifying grace and that deprived their offspring of the scantifying grace also. So though their offspring did not sin themselves, they were born without sanctifying grace. That is what the Church teaches. I don’t think I can provide the theological arguments by which the Church reached these concludions. But they are based on Scripture. Is this the kind of response you are looking for?

Linus2nd

I need to fully understand how formal logic works.

In the meantime, in my opinion, Adam and Eve were created in the State of Original Holiness aka the State of Sanctifying Grace (Genesis 1: 26-27) could follow from the premise “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.” When Adam sinned, the original relationship of humanity with Divinity is destroyed so I would not deduce this information nor information about descendants.
Going back to Rhubarb, post 22.
“So far, the only conclusions we can draw are conclusion statements that involve the concepts of “God”, “Creator”, “interaction”, “humans” and perhaps some of the qualifiers like “inherent” and “capacity”, but I think those qualifiers aren’t distinct from the concepts they’re attached to thus far the way things are written.”

It is my observation that Genesis 1: 26-27 refers to the spiritual principle of human nature; therefore, I see the spiritual soul as including God, Creator, and interaction with a human. If I am accurate, the creation of human’s spiritual soul as the interaction becomes a conclusion according to the above quote from post 22. We need to wait to see how Rhubarb replies.

The establishment of a spiritual soul is what makes the human species different in kind from all other species. The spiritual soul can also imply a human goal other than a worldly one. (CCC 1730-32) One may or may not be able to deduce these two thoughts from only three premises. I think that an additional concept would be goal. There is a definite goal in the original relationship. (CCC 404)

When one is trying to describe Original Sin, one could point to the difference between the original relationship and the broken relationship due to Original Sin. (CCC 399; CCC 404; *CCC *416)

 

[Rhubarb]

I need to fully understand how formal logic works.

In the meantime, in my opinion, Adam and Eve were created in the State of Original Holiness aka the State of Sanctifying Grace (Genesis 1: 26-27) could follow from the premise “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.” When Adam sinned, the original relationship of humanity with Divinity is destroyed so I would not deduce this information nor information about descendants.
Going back to Rhubarb, post 22.
“So far, the only conclusions we can draw are conclusion statements that involve the concepts of “God”, “Creator”, “interaction”, “humans” and perhaps some of the qualifiers like “inherent” and “capacity”, but I think those qualifiers aren’t distinct from the concepts they’re attached to thus far the way things are written.”

It is my observation that Genesis 1: 26-27 refers to the spiritual principle of human nature; therefore, I see the spiritual soul as including God, Creator, and interaction with a human. If I am accurate, the creation of human’s spiritual soul as the interaction becomes a conclusion according to the above quote from post 22. We need to wait to see how Rhubarb replies.

The establishment of a spiritual soul is what makes the human species different in kind from all other species. The spiritual soul can also imply a human goal other than a worldly one. (CCC 1730-32) One may or may not be able to deduce these two thoughts from only three premises. I think that an additional concept would be goal. There is a definite goal in the original relationship. (CCC 404)

When one is trying to describe Original Sin, one could point to the difference between the original relationship and the broken relationship due to Original Sin. (CCC 399; CCC 404; *CCC *416)

1: A crash-course in formal logic is certainly doable but it would go far from the subject of this post. I suspect some web-searching off the forums could lead to some understandings.

2: To get to talking about a state of Original Holiness from “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human”, you would need an intermediate premise to connect them. Something like…

P1. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
P2. If God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human, then the first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.​

C1. The first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.

Of course, this is a contrived and not very useful example. But I think it shows what logic needs - it takes information that is already available (1 and 2) and returns something else we can know (C1) just because we know the prior things. We’re not creating new information, like science does. The information in C1 is contained in P1 and P2 already - we’re just coaxing it out. So any argument we may want to make needs the concepts we’re using introduced as premises and assumptions. Then we can see how the concepts relate to one another, and what other information we can coax out of them.

 

[grannymh]

1: A crash-course in formal logic is certainly doable but it would go far from the subject of this post. I suspect some web-searching off the forums could lead to some understandings.

May I gently request that you read the word which follows the ampersand & in the title of this thread?

 

[grannymh]

2: To get to talking about a state of Original Holiness from “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human”, you would need an intermediate premise to connect them. Something like…

P1. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
P2. If God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human, then the first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.​

C1. The first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.

Of course, this is a contrived and not very useful example.

Regarding the comment “Of course, this is a contrived and not very useful example.”
You may laugh if you wish. I am laughing to myself. Your example is very, very useful.

When I started, I saw within " P2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human." a reference to human nature’s spiritual principle aka rational spiritual soul in the image of God. (Genesis 1: 26-27) Because I was looking at human nature per se, I needed to connect it with God as Creator. (CCC 366) The power to create a being who, in his own nature unites the spiritual and material worlds, is implied in the word Creator, premise 1. (CCC 355)

Question regarding the suggested P2. …
“P2. If God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human, then the first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.”

… is the opening word “If” necessary? Can I use the word “Because”?

This I what I would like to get across.
Because God can be defined as a transcendent Pure Spirit without material restrictions, that is, with infinite power (or is almighty), He can create a human creature capable of interacting with Himself, then it is reasonable that the first human (singular is required), would be an unique unification of spirit and matter, a rational spiritual soul and a decomposing anatomy. Therefore, the original relationship between creature and Creator is the state of Original Holiness.

Note: because of misunderstandings about the meaning of Original Holiness, I would need a clarifying definition of some kind. Most likely I would need a large paragraph as a footnote.

Next, there is the original P3 Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. (CCC 356; *CCC *1730-1732; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 8-10) This is based on the principle that interaction requires two persons.

My instinct is to change “C1. The first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.” to It is reasonable that the first true human has the natural capacity to interact with God as Creator.

While it is true that we are not creating new information like science does via the Inductive Method, I recognize the interpretations of the current science of human evolution which lead to a denial of a single first fully-complete human person as taught by the Catholic Church. That is why I prefer the word reasonable. Credible is another good word.

But I think it shows what logic needs - it takes information that is already available (1 and 2) and returns something else we can know (C1) just because we know the prior things. We’re not creating new information, like science does. The information in C1 is contained in P1 and P2 already - we’re just coaxing it out. So any argument we may want to make needs the concepts we’re using introduced as premises and assumptions. Then we can see how the concepts relate to one another, and what other information we can coax out of them.

I love the word “coaxing.” That is what a granny does.

Informative links regarding the reasonableness or credibility of a singular human origin consisting of a population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[simpleas]

I know nothing like what has been posted on this new Adam&Logic thread, so I’m going to try and just follow along and ponder what is said. This might be a stupid question to most posters but I instantly thought it when I read :

All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.

The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G.
How is this logical, but the all green things are grass isn’t?

 

[Rhubarb]

I know nothing like what has been posted on this new Adam&Logic thread, so I’m going to try and just follow along and ponder what is said. This might be a stupid question to most posters but I instantly thought it when I read :

All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.

The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G.
How is this logical, but the all green things are grass isn’t?

All grass is green, therefore all green things are grass is invalid because of the form of the statement. It can be regimented into logic something like…

(1) If something is grass, then it is green.
(2) Therefore, everything that is green is grass.

This is an invalid pattern of inference - that is to say that the structure of the argument does not guarantee that the conclusion is true based on the truth of the premise. The argument is also unsound because (1) isn’t true - there are plenty of instances of grass that isn’t green.

Now if we consider "The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G. " there’s a few things we can say. First, we can say that it’s invalid because the conclusion doesn’t follow (logically, in the formal sense) from the premise. HOWEVER this is a good candidate for an enthymatic argument - that is, an argument that COULD be valid but it seems like there’s missing premises. So consider…

(P1) The first two fully and completely humans sinned.
(P2) If the first two fully and completely humans sinned, then they lose sanctifying grace.
(C1) The first two fully and completely humans lost sanctifying grace. (By modus ponens)
(P3) ???
(Pn)???
(C2) All humans born from them lack sanctifying grace.

So, unlike with the grass example that is blatantly invalid AND unsound, this argument can be made valid by the addition of premises to get from P1 and P2 to C2. Probably something along the lines of “all humans are born from the first two fully humans” and “anything born from the from the first two fully humans lack sanctifying grace.” That might do the trick.

 

[Rhubarb]

Regarding the comment “Of course, this is a contrived and not very useful example.”
You may laugh if you wish. I am laughing to myself. Your example is very, very useful.

When I started, I saw within " P2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human." a reference to human nature’s spiritual principle aka rational spiritual soul in the image of God. (Genesis 1: 26-27) Because I was looking at human nature per se, I needed to connect it with God as Creator. (CCC 366) The power to create a being who, in his own nature unites the spiritual and material worlds, is implied in the word Creator, premise 1. (CCC 355)

Question regarding the suggested P2. …
“P2. If God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human, then the first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.”

… is the opening word “If” necessary? Can I use the word “Because”?

This I what I would like to get across.
Because God can be defined as a transcendent Pure Spirit without material restrictions, that is, with infinite power (or is almighty), He can create a human creature capable of interacting with Himself, then it is reasonable that the first human (singular is required), would be an unique unification of spirit and matter, a rational spiritual soul and a decomposing anatomy. Therefore, the original relationship between creature and Creator is the state of Original Holiness.

Note: because of misunderstandings about the meaning of Original Holiness, I would need a clarifying definition of some kind. Most likely I would need a large paragraph as a footnote.

Next, there is the original P3 Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. (CCC 356; *CCC *1730-1732; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 8-10) This is based on the principle that interaction requires two persons.

My instinct is to change “C1. The first humans must have been made in a state of Original Holiness.” to It is reasonable that the first true human has the natural capacity to interact with God as Creator.

While it is true that we are not creating new information like science does via the Inductive Method, I recognize the interpretations of the current science of human evolution which lead to a denial of a single first fully-complete human person as taught by the Catholic Church. That is why I prefer the word reasonable. Credible is another good word.

I love the word “coaxing.” That is what a granny does.

Informative links regarding the reasonableness or credibility of a singular human origin consisting of a population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I think the ‘if’ is necessary because it makes explicit that we’re dealing with a conditional. That is, a certain sentence where the parts are set up in a certain relationship. Namely, that if A occurs, then B must also occur. The ‘if’ doesn’t question that God exists. All it says is that if he DOES exist, then humans were made in a certain way without a doubt.

I think that for our intents and purposes, the ‘because’ is built into the ‘if-then’ statement. Sort of like “If it is raining, then the sidewalk is wet.” I think the ‘because’ is built in. Moreover, if I said “The sidewalk is wet because it is raining”, we would then regiment it in logic as 'if it is raining, then the sidewalk is wet."

 

[simpleas]

All grass is green, therefore all green things are grass is invalid because of the form of the statement. It can be regimented into logic something like…

(1) If something is grass, then it is green.
(2) Therefore, everything that is green is grass.

This is an invalid pattern of inference - that is to say that the structure of the argument does not guarantee that the conclusion is true based on the truth of the premise. The argument is also unsound because (1) isn’t true - there are plenty of instances of grass that isn’t green.

Now if we consider "The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G. " there’s a few things we can say. First, we can say that it’s invalid because the conclusion doesn’t follow (logically, in the formal sense) from the premise. HOWEVER this is a good candidate for an enthymatic argument - that is, an argument that COULD be valid but it seems like there’s missing premises. So consider…

(P1) The first two fully and completely humans sinned.
(P2) If the first two fully and completely humans sinned, then they lose sanctifying grace.
(C1) The first two fully and completely humans lost sanctifying grace. (By modus ponens)
(P3) ???
(Pn)???
(C2) All humans born from them lack sanctifying grace.

So, unlike with the grass example that is blatantly invalid AND unsound, this argument can be made valid by the addition of premises to get from P1 and P2 to C2. Probably something along the lines of “all humans are born from the first two fully humans” and “anything born from the from the first two fully humans lack sanctifying grace.” That might do the trick.

Thanks for that.
While I understood that the All grass is green, therefore all green things are grass is wrong, I fail to understand how we know that “all humans are born from the first two fully humans” and "anything born from the first two fully humans lack sanctifying grace would be true.

 

[Rhubarb]

Thanks for that.
While I understood that the All grass is green, therefore all green things are grass is wrong, I fail to understand how we know that “all humans are born from the first two fully humans” and "anything born from the first two fully humans lack sanctifying grace would be true.

Arguments are criticized in two ways. First for validity, the other for soundness. Validity is just the form of the argument - it’s all structure. The conclusion of a valid argument is guaranteed to be true provided all the premises used to get there are true. So the argument…

(P1) Santa Claus exists.
(P2) If Santa Claus exists, Rhubarb is the rightful ruler of the universe.​

(C1) Rhubarb is the rightful ruler of the universe

… is completely valid. It’s simple modus ponens, which is a valid pattern of inference.
However, clearly P1 is false. Strangely enough P2 is true, but that doesn’t matter. Because C1 depends on both P1 and P2 being true, C1 can’t be guaranteed to be true. C1 might turn out to be true coincidentally, though in this case I doubt it. But we can definitely say that the justification given for C1 is bad because the argument is unsound.

And that’s really the rub when we’re trying to make complicated deductive arguments like this. Every premise used can be challenged for soundness. Which means each premise is another potential chink in the armor of the argument. This is why I identify as agnostic - there are perfectly valid arguments for God’s existence. But I’ve yet to find one that’s ironclad-sound. (That’s another issue though and way off topic)

So to get to the conclusion we’re driving at, we need premises that can lead to the conclusion, but that can also be reasonably defended as true.

 

[wmw]

This I what I would like to get across.

Because God can be defined as a transcendent Pure Spirit without material restrictions, that is, with infinite power (or is almighty),

I don’t like the idea of “defining” God (it would seem to me an infinite definition), but why not just simplify this to “God is almighty”.

He can create a human creature capable of interacting with Himself, then it is reasonable that the first human (singular is required), would be an unique unification of spirit and matter,

Wow, suddenly we are into the nature of spirit and matter. Yes, He can do it, but why is it reasonable? Why is matter important to all of this? or the nature of the spiritual?

Those are not a part of the final conclusion (see below starting with “Therefore,”)

a rational spiritual soul and a decomposing anatomy.

Really? Adam wasn’t to die until after the fall, Was his anatomy decomposing? Sounds like a night of the living dead movie.

Therefore, the original relationship between creature and Creator is the state of Original Holiness.

Is this the real end game? lets just set this as a goal and not throw up so many other ideas that seem to just muddy the water. Some may have to be introduced as premises, but getting directly to the point is a very good practice in logic.

 

[wmw]

So, I think that we need to make small distinct logical arguments of each conclusion Grannymh would like to bring forth. Here is my attempt at the first:

God is almighty.

God chose to create man.

Holiness is to be without moral flaw.

if God has all power and all goodness then His creations are originally without moral flaw.

If God created man then He created man originally holy.

Yes, I even left out the interaction of God and man or Adam. I would leave that for a separate argument though we could use the outcome of this one as a premise if needed. Is this a good place to start with a bit of word smithing, maybe?

I used moral flaw to help clarify holiness it may not be necessary, but I thought it better for those that think holiness is an indistinct attribute.