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

[Rhubarb]

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.

This argument doesn’t seem to follow logically, but I see what you’re driving at and it could with some tweaking. Yeah, this would work (once the form was cleaned up) as a valid deduction to mankind being created in a state of holiness. But, for the OP, I want to caution again that even if we find a valid deduction there’s still the job of making sure that the argument is sound. Some of these premises would be granted by believers, but not by non-believers, or instance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m still trying to find out what question is being asked. So far no one has stated the question we are supposed to be debating. We can’t discuss dozens of question at the same time. So what is the first essential question?

Linus2nd

 

[wmw]

I’ve worked on an improved version:

God is almighty.

God chose to create man.

If God is almighty then He would not create anything with a flaw.

Holiness is to be without moral flaw.

if God is almighty then His creations are originally without moral flaw.

If God created man then He created man originally holy.

 

[wmw]

I’m still trying to find out what question is being asked. So far no one has stated the question we are supposed to be debating. We can’t discuss dozens of question at the same time. So what is the first essential question?

Linus2nd

I’ve taken one piece of this paragraph which seemed her best attempt to date to answer that question. I’m saying that there are many pieces yet to go and that each one may need a separate logical deduction.
grannymh;:

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.

 

[wmw]

This argument doesn’t seem to follow logically, but I see what you’re driving at and it could with some tweaking. Yeah, this would work (once the form was cleaned up) as a valid deduction to mankind being created in a state of holiness. But, for the OP, I want to caution again that even if we find a valid deduction there’s still the job of making sure that the argument is sound. Some of these premises would be granted by believers, but not by non-believers, or instance.

To assume unbelief is to go the way of Kant and end up with only a consciousness that can be fed any sort of true or false experiences. Yes, accepting as premises that God exists and in some of his attributes is a fine place to start to stimulate the believer’s understanding of the teachings of Genesis.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve taken one piece of this paragraph which seemed her best attempt to date to answer that question. I’m saying that there are many pieces yet to go and that each one may need a separate logical deduction.

The problem with this thread is that there is no starting point and that was the problem with the first two precursors. A thread has to have ONE question as the topic of discussion. You can’t say 1. God exists, 2. Adam and Eve existed, 3. man has a rational soul, 3. man sinned, 4. original sin is a fact, etc and say that is the thread. There is no question there. So I am asking, what question is this thread asking? So far no one has given me an answer.

Now if this thread wants to ask, " What is the relationship between man and God? " that is fine, but it should be narrowed down a bit becaues, even this is too broad.

Linus2nd

.

 

[grannymh]

The problem with this thread is that there is no starting point and that was the problem with the first two precursors. A thread has to have ONE question as the topic of discussion. You can’t say 1. God exists, 2. Adam and Eve existed, 3. man has a rational soul, 3. man sinned, 4. original sin is a fact, etc and say that is the thread. There is no question there. So I am asking, what question is this thread asking? So far no one has given me an answer.

Now if this thread wants to ask, " What is the relationship between man and God? " that is fine, but it should be narrowed down a bit becaues, even this is too broad.

Linus2nd

.

This thread may be the first of its kind.

I have to study it to find out what I am doing.

Naturally, everyone may fix the problems of this thread and/or offer their own way of presenting information about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Personally, I can speculate a variety of branches leading from both “humanity” and “Divinity.”

Post 41 has a good point.
“I’m still trying to find out what question is being asked. So far no one has stated the question we are supposed to be debating. We can’t discuss dozens of question at the same time. So what is the first essential question?”

My own first essential question follows from this first sentence in the OP post.
“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, my first essential question is “What is the best method for explaining the original relationship between the first human lovingly known as Adam and his Divine Creator.” Naturally, there are different answers. So be it. That is what makes a thread interesting.

As for me and my older than dirt brain, I have chosen formal logic as the best way for me to address the exhibited difficulties found in the first three chapters of Genesis and in the Catholic doctrines flowing from these first basic fundamental chapters. I am accepting this proposition in Rhubarb’s post 30. “1: A crash-course in formal logic is certainly doable”

I see that wmw is proposing another way to approach the issues involved in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. And of course, you, and others, can propose a first essential question. Discussion is wide open.

 

[grannymh]

This argument doesn’t seem to follow logically, but I see what you’re driving at and it could with some tweaking. Yeah, this would work (once the form was cleaned up) as a valid deduction to mankind being created in a state of holiness. But, for the OP, I want to caution again that even if we find a valid deduction there’s still the job of making sure that the argument is sound. Some of these premises would be granted by believers, but not by non-believers, or instance.

I have learned by experience to exercise caution. Some of my early posts on the reality of Adam … Still, I credit the experience of having my head on a platter as the motivation to learn about natural science. Many moons ago, I worked for a man who insisted that I had in my back pocket the evidence for everything I was writing in an article. You and others on this thread need to make sure that my “evidence” is sound. Thank you.

 

[simpleas]

The problem with this thread is that there is no starting point and that was the problem with the first two precursors. A thread has to have ONE question as the topic of discussion. You can’t say 1. God exists, 2. Adam and Eve existed, 3. man has a rational soul, 3. man sinned, 4. original sin is a fact, etc and say that is the thread. There is no question there. So I am asking, what question is this thread asking? So far no one has given me an answer.

Now if this thread wants to ask, " What is the relationship between man and God? " that is fine, but it should be narrowed down a bit becaues, even this is too broad.

Linus2nd

.

I don’t think it’s one actual question, rather more of a discussion that will raise many questions.
If I’m following correctly, the discussion is based on The original relationship between Adam and Eve and God.
If we are here to seek, know and love God, say in the Human condition without the original relationship, without S.G, what would Adam and Eve’s (before the fall) seeking, knowing and loving God consist of. They were limited in someway also,or I’d assume they couldn’t have fallen from S,G.

 

[grannymh]

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?

An important fact is missing from the initial statement “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace,” In other words, what makes the conclusion " therefore all humans born from them are without S.G" true has to be in the first premise.

Attention Rhubarb –

I am trying to put into practice what I am trying to learn about logic. I know the answer to what makes the conclusion correct. But I want to make sure that I need some point in the first premise which allows me to deduce the conclusion. Am I using modus ponens, mode (or can I use the word method) of affirming?

 

[Rhubarb]

Modus ponens is just an argument for recognized as valid. It’s also said that modus ponens is a valid pattern of inference. MP works thusly.

A→B
A​

B

It takes two assumptions, like “it is raining” and “if it is raining, then the sidewalk is wet” and through them it can guantantee the truth of the conclusion, “the sidewalk is wet” provided the two premises are true.

 

[wmw]

Good logic:
There are two consistent logical argument constructions: modus ponens (“the way that affirms by affirming”) and modus tollens (“the way that denies by denying”). Here are how they are constructed:

Modus Ponens: “If A is true, then B is true. A is true. Therefore, B is true.”

Modus Tollens: “If A is true, then B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true.”

Bad Logic:
There are two related incorrect and inconsistent constructions: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

Affirming the Consequent: “If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true.”

Denying the Antecedent: “If A is true, then B is true. A is not true. Therefore, B is not true.”

From: physics.smu.edu/pseudo/examples_logic.html

 

[wmw]

Modus Tollens is not as straightforward as its companion, Modus Ponens. Although common in argument, a Modus Tollens is not necessarily true, as the major premise (If X is true then Y is true) says nothing about falsehood. If, however, X and Y are bivalent (both can be either true or false) and X can only be true if Y is true, then the Modus Tollens stands.
Modus Tollens is the root of falsification, as proposed by Karl Popper and since used as the cornerstone of scientific proof.
This is also known as Denying the Consequent, as Y, the consequent is being denied as being true.

The above From: changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/syllogisms/modus_tollens.htm

 

[grannymh]

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?

From post 33

“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,”

These are two completely separate true statements. Instead of logic, it sounds like someone is really asking – Why are all descendants of Adam born in the state of Original Sin?

If logic is going to be used, then the answer to the “why” question has to be in the first premise. “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace.”

Because the second statement refers to human descendants, it would be reasonable to look at the human ancestor Adam. It seems to me that the connection between these two separate true statements is the human connection.

Here we ask – What is it about the human Adam which determines that his State of Original Sin is transmitted to his descendants?
CCC 404 has the answer.

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

Now, instead of two separate statements, I am going to try to put together a logical premise and a conclusion.

Premise. If the unity of the whole humankind is in the first human being Adam “as one body of one man”,

Conclusion. then Adam’s State of Original Sin is transmitted to all his descendants as a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

CCC 404 refers to Original Sin.

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Rhubarb, please respond to the above premise and conclusion. Thank you.

What I personally see as the root of the problem with “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G.” is that the complete knowledge about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity is not being used. What is usually presented as an explanation for why all humans are born in the contracted State of Original is based on human to human allegory. But, the original relationship is not a human to human experience. That is why I consider important the fact that God and Adam do not exist as equal beings.

 

[Rhubarb]

From post 33

“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,”

These are two completely separate true statements. Instead of logic, it sounds like someone is really asking – Why are all descendants of Adam born in the state of Original Sin?

If logic is going to be used, then the answer to the “why” question has to be in the first premise. “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace.”

Because the second statement refers to human descendants, it would be reasonable to look at the human ancestor Adam. It seems to me that the connection between these two separate true statements is the human connection.

Here we ask – What is it about the human Adam which determines that his State of Original Sin is transmitted to his descendants?
CCC 404 has the answer.

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

Now, instead of two separate statements, I am going to try to put together a logical premise and a conclusion.

Premise. If the unity of the whole humankind is in the first human being Adam “as one body of one man”,

Conclusion. then Adam’s State of Original Sin is transmitted to all his descendants as a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

CCC 404 refers to Original Sin.

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Rhubarb, please respond to the above premise and conclusion. Thank you.

What I personally see as the root of the problem with “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G.” is that the complete knowledge about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity is not being used. What is usually presented as an explanation for why all humans are born in the contracted State of Original is based on human to human allegory. But, the original relationship is not a human to human experience. That is why I consider important the fact that God and Adam do not exist as equal beings.

What statement is the premise and which statement is the conclusion? I’m getting lost. From post 33? “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G”?

It isn’t logical. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise as stated. You have two statements. “The first two fully complete humans sinned” and “the first two fully complete humans lost S.G” The content of the first we’ll call A and the content of the second we’ll call B. So the premise can be regimented as A&B. The conclusion can be regimented best, I think, as C→D. “If all humans were born from the first two fully complete humans, then those humans are born without S.G.” (This is a simpler form of sentence logic. It can be made more complicated in first-order logic if we really wanted to, but I don’t think it’s necessary) So we have an argument that looks like this:

A&B​

C→D

This is not a valid argument form. The conclusion MAY be true, but it doesn’t follow from the premise. The information you give in the premise isn’t even in the conclusion - which is an immediate red flag.

So, I hope I didn’t go off on a tangent. If that wasn’t the premise and conclusion you meant, I’ll try again. It’s late. >.>

 

[grannymh]

What statement is the premise and which statement is the conclusion? I’m getting lost. From post 33? “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G”?

It isn’t logical. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise as stated. You have two statements. “The first two fully complete humans sinned” and “the first two fully complete humans lost S.G” The content of the first we’ll call A and the content of the second we’ll call B. So the premise can be regimented as A&B. The conclusion can be regimented best, I think, as C→D. “If all humans were born from the first two fully complete humans, then those humans are born without S.G.” (This is a simpler form of sentence logic. It can be made more complicated in first-order logic if we really wanted to, but I don’t think it’s necessary) So we have an argument that looks like this:

A&B​

C→D

This is not a valid argument form. The conclusion MAY be true, but it doesn’t follow from the premise. The information you give in the premise isn’t even in the conclusion - which is an immediate red flag.

So, I hope I didn’t go off on a tangent. If that wasn’t the premise and conclusion you meant, I’ll try again. It’s late. >.>

It is a good tangent because I have to defend the process I used.
This is what was presented in post 33.

“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,”

These are the steps I took before I could answer the question how is this logical?

First, I dropped “lost Sanctifying Grace” because in Catholic-speak, the State of Original Sin is the proper description of Adam after his Original Sin. This did not change the facts that Adam lost his State of Sanctifying Grace and his descendants are not born in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Next, I observed that the original presentation in post 33 consisted of two separate statements, both of which are true. Sentence 1.–The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace. Sentence 2. All humans born from them are without S.G.

I had to ask myself what is the purpose of using the tools of logic if both sentences are true. I concluded that there was a normal, often seen on CAF, basic question asking – Why are all descendants of Adam born in the State of Original Sin?

At this point, I needed to choose a premise which would include a fact that would be the reason why all descendants of Adam are born in the State of Original Sin. I did not think about stating “If all humans were born from the first two fully complete humans, then those humans are born without S.G.” Apparently I thought that the original sentence 2. (all humans born from them) had sufficient information. However, I did refer to “unity of the whole humankind” which automatically includes that this unity is the result of everyone descending from the same two founders of the human species. Still, the question, that would need a logic process, remained. In my observation, that question is – What made it possible for all descendants to be born in the State of Original Sin.

I do use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition as the source of Catholic teachings. The reference to “our first parents” in CCC 390 is basic; however, I wanted a statement which referred directly to Adam. This is that strong clear statement I needed.
**From paragraph 404 **
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

Because I am presenting a Catholic position for Catholics, I do not think it is necessary for me to add another “if” statement. However, I should not exclude interested non-believers including Catholics. Yet, everyone, regardless of their world view, can recognize the unity of humankind. Either my presentation needs more work or it doesn’t. At the moment, I need someone else’s opinion.

granny’s proposal

Premise. If the unity of the whole humankind is in the first human being Adam “as one body of one man”,

Conclusion. then Adam’s State of Original Sin is transmitted to all his descendants as a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

The words “one body” mean all descendants because one means one.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What statement is the premise and which statement is the conclusion? I’m getting lost. From post 33? “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G”?

It isn’t logical. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise as stated. You have two statements. “The first two fully complete humans sinned” and “the first two fully complete humans lost S.G” The content of the first we’ll call A and the content of the second we’ll call B. So the premise can be regimented as A&B. The conclusion can be regimented best, I think, as C→D. “If all humans were born from the first two fully complete humans, then those humans are born without S.G.” (This is a simpler form of sentence logic. It can be made more complicated in first-order logic if we really wanted to, but I don’t think it’s necessary) So we have an argument that looks like this:

A&B​

C→D

This is not a valid argument form. The conclusion MAY be true, but it doesn’t follow from the premise. The information you give in the premise isn’t even in the conclusion - which is an immediate red flag.

So, I hope I didn’t go off on a tangent. If that wasn’t the premise and conclusion you meant, I’ll try again. It’s late. >.>

Correct, it is not logical and isn’t meant to be. God acts according to his own counsel, his ways are beyond our ways. We suffer from " original sin " because God deemed it just. He was under no obligation to create Adam and Eve in the state of S.G and he was under no obligation to allow their offspring to be born in the state of S. G. either. In some way beyond our comprehension, this is tied up with God’s mercy in the former case and with his justice in the latter.

Linus2nd,

 

[grannymh]

What statement is the premise and which statement is the conclusion? I’m getting lost. From post 33? “The first two fully complete humans sinned and lost sanctifying grace, so therefore all humans born from them are without S.G”?

I just realized my error.

Post 33 is Simpleas. I was working on that post.

 

[grannymh]

Correct, it is not logical and isn’t meant to be. God acts according to his own counsel, his ways are beyond our ways. We suffer from " original sin " because God deemed it just. He was under no obligation to create Adam and Eve in the state of S.G and he was under no obligation to allow their offspring to be born in the state of S. G. either. In some way beyond our comprehension, this is tied up with God’s mercy in the former case and with his justice in the latter.

Linus2nd,

I am not challenging the truths in this post. Nor am I challenging the truths presented by wmw.

What I am challenging is the depth of the current investigation involving the reality of original Adam and the reality of Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church. My natural curiosity is not satisfied with this sentence. We suffer from " original sin " because God deemed it just.

As a former journalist, I would go back to that sentence and find out why. In my humble opinion, in this decade, formal logic is the best approach to the why? Obviously, there are other methods just as valid. Considering that the subject matter, “original relationship between humanity and Divinity” is very broad, naturally there is a wide range of possible discussions. All discussions are appreciated. Hopefully, my discussion on in depth logic (per thread title) and theological truths will also find appreciation.

 

[Rhubarb]

granny’s proposal

Premise. If the unity of the whole humankind is in the first human being Adam “as one body of one man”,

Conclusion. then Adam’s State of Original Sin is transmitted to all his descendants as a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

The words “one body” mean all descendants because one means one.

So I tried to capture what you were saying in premise-conclusion form. Everything is valid for sure except (C3) I’m sure it IS valid and follows from C1 and C2, but I just don’t remember the justification. When I have time I’ll pull down the logic books and see if I can work it out. Also, I simplified terms for the sake of the logic, but someone who was better at translating to logic could easily take the time and write it out more complex to be more explicit.

(P1) Adam is in Original Sin

(P2) If Adam is in Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin

(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans

(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.

(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in Original Sin (C1, C2)