Briefly: Universe of Discourse

Paris: Facebook

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

To continue from the previous Langer review posting:

'The total collection of those and only those elements which belong to a formal context is called a Universe of Discourse. (68). In normal conversation the limitations of such a universe are assumed. (68). Langer uses the example 'Everybody knows that another war is coming'. (68). 'Everybody' she writes is assumed to be adults of normal intelligence and of European culture. (68). Note, this text was written in 1953 with a new edition in 1967, so perhaps if written in 2016, the reference to European culture would not be as relevant?

Logicians generally denote the universe of discourse with the letter K. (69).

Langer wrote: 'K=int 'houses'' (69). Cited 'K (A, B, C, D,)' (69).

Therefore

Universe of discourse=K

int=identified with

Langer uses italics for 'K', which in my opinion will confuse the issue on this post, so I will decline and instead use 'K' as I did with previous related post.

I have been nicknamed the kingpin by a good friend due to my very muscular and yet not six-pack, 'pretty boy' frame. I am less so, today, but I still receive that moniker from time to time. I am also, thankfully, more so today, called Dr. Russ.

A possible equation

K=identified with names for Russell Norman Murray

K (T, D, R, L, N, M)

T=The Kingpin

D=Dr. Russ

R=Russ

L=Russell

N=Norman

M=Murray

The Langer text is going to become more complex with equations forward. I will do my best to understand and to present understandably.

From my reading, I can agree with Langer that a reasonable universe of discourse must be definite with academic disciplines. (68). For example, with scientific and medical terminology, for the sake of accuracy, discourse cannot be commonly assumed as with ordinary conversation. It must be technically understood for those that professionally work within that universe of discourse.

Contrary to what many assume within religious studies, bible and theology, commonly assumed meaning in ordinary conversation will not always suffice at an academic level. Within religious studies as an academic discipline for example, subjective, personalized viewpoints on 'God' and/or 'gods' read more as fictional than non-fictional terminology within academia.

Biblical and theological terminology and universe of discourse needs to be made understandable for the non-academic and yet true to its revealed, historical, supernatural source. This is true not only because most in the church are not religious studies academics but also because modern western culture is significantly different than the cultures in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

However, an overuse of theological and philosophical modern, historical, revision, severely discredits new interpretations as not true to original Scriptural source.

2 Timothy 2:15

English Standard Version (ESV)

15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[a] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Footnotes: 

2 Timothy 2:15 That is, one approved after being tested

2 Timothy 3:16-17

English Standard Version (ESV)

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:19-21

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Vancouver

As exciting as watching a chess match (PhD Edit)

Pinterest

As exciting as watching a chess match (PhD Edit)

Thank you to Mike for hosting the Euro 2016 matches this morning and this afternoon. Croatia, the team below with the table cloth uniforms, took part in a match against Portugal with both clubs combining for two shots on goal in 120 minutes. This was as exciting as watching a chess match, but Mike and I had good conversation. Team chessboard, lost.

Mike kindly mentioned he read some of my website articles but provided a reasonable critique that perhaps I should explain some of the more technical terms in typical English. I do not desire my writing to read as exciting as watching a chess match...

The following is an attempt to provide clarity in regard to language with a key PhD subject:

Incompatibilism versus Compatibilism

Incompatibilism

Significant free will (human in this context) would be viewed an incompatible with any form of determinism.

Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism or libertarian free will, in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324). In other words, no external force must cause a legitimate and truly free act of the human will. Within incompatibilist theory, a human action would never truly be free because God or an another external force (non-deistic view) would have willed and determined it, before being simultaneously willed to a given person. Mawson (1999: 324). Pre-determined before committed by the human being.

The external force could hypothetically be a first cause within non-theistic theory.

The Biblical concept theologically being that God is infinite and is therefore limitless; God is eternal and therefore has always existed (Genesis 1). This concept is connected to philosophical views of first cause.

David M. Ciocchi describes the incompatibilist idea as being God can determine that an agent commit action x, but he cannot determine that an agent commit action x freely. Ciocchi (2002: 46).

The theory is that significantly free human will and actions cannot be caused by an external force. This would include a first cause. This would include God.

Norman Geisler describes a form of incompatibilism which he, calls self-determinism. Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Geisler (1986: 75).

J.S. Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will approaches that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64). There can be no antecedent (there can be no prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). Feinberg importantly writes that just as the incompatibilist does not claim that all actions are significantly free, the compatibilist also does not attach significant freedom to all acts. Feinberg (2001: 637). Feinberg then admits that it is difficult for compatibilists to determine intellectually if certain acts were done by an individual with significant freedom, or with the use of some type of compulsion. Feinberg (2001: 637). He then states that this intellectual difficulty does not disprove compatibilism.

I agree that it does not disprove compatibilism, but the fact that both compatibilists and incompatibilists admit that some actions are not significantly free would make the self-deterministic notions unlikely. If some actions are determined and caused by God then a system that generally adopts a strong view of God’s sovereignty and limited significant human freedom is preferable. This as opposed to libertarian free will. If to both compatibilists and incompatibilists, human beings at times can be forced to commit actions against their will, it is ever more likely that the human will is not the primary cause in human actions, but the secondary cause if it is allowed to be a secondary determining factor by the primary cause. These actions would be done without significant human freedom and therefore it would be intellectually untenable to attach human moral responsibility to such actions.

Compatibilism

Significant free will (human in this context) would be viewed as compatible with at least some forms of soft determinism.

Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).

Within determinism or hard determinism, God (or an external force) causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).

It could be stated that human secondary causes, through a chain of human nature and human will, embrace what has been caused and chosen by God, the first and primary cause. The human being could also be influenced by other secondary causes, such as other persons and angelic beings, for example.

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused at all by the human nature and will, then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

I agree.

Within hard determinism God or an external force, would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism and compatibilism, God or an external force, would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause.

CIOCCHI, DAVID M. (2002) ‘The Religious Adequacy of Free-Will Theism’, in Religious Studies, Volume 38, pp. 45-61. Cambridge.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Thank you for hosting, Mike.

Brief: The Four Houses

Today: Colourized 

Preface

I am approximately twenty percent through reading the Langer text and I recently received a reasonable deal on a three-set complete Bible commentary, I ordered from a source I have mentioned and alluded to. I will explain more with an audio post when the texts arrive. Book reviews provide me with content from other scholarly sources and allow me to write more articles. Writing is a component of my ministry as is Church ministry.

Walldotalphacodedotcom: Berlin Cathedral

Brief: The Four Houses

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Quote

'The formal context of any discourse may be agreed upon and expressed; the psychological context cannot.' (67). Langer uses the example of different psychological perspectives on death. The potential and possible death of a person from the perspective of a crime victim versus death from the perspective of an undertaker, which is finalized death. The two contexts cannot be exhaustively stated. (67-68). The idea being that they are both far too subjective.

Formal context is objective. Using Langer's use of 'death', the following is an objective documented context for death.

From Oxford Dictionary of Science:

'The point at which the processes that maintain an organism alive no longer function.' (223). In humans this is diagnosed by the permanent ceasing of the heartbeat, although the heart can continue after a significant part of the brain has ceased function. (223). Brain death is a related concept that is documented. (223).

Within Christian thought:

There would be subjective contexts of Christian faith and philosophy, such as one reasons (and feels) God is leading a person to commit a particular act/action.

There would be objective contexts of Christian faith and philosophy, with core biblical doctrines, including and not exhaustively, that there is only one God, God has three distinctions within the trinity, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation by grace through faith alone, for good works, not by good works.

Quote

'The total collection of those and only those elements which belong to a formal context is called a Universe of Discourse. (68). This subject will be reviewed more thoroughly in my next Langer related post. But for now, Langer provides the related symbolic logic:

A group of four houses are a universe of discourse. (69).

Cited

'K=int 'houses'' (69).

Cited

'K (A, B, C, D,)' (69).

My symbols

H= identified with/int Houses

H (1, 2, 3, 4)

or

H (A, B, C, D)

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Google Informed Me Someone Tried to Hack Into This Website/Concealed Quantification

Margam Abbey & Castle: trekearth

Google Informed Me Someone Tried to Hack Into This Website

Very early this  morning, Google/Blogger notified me that someone tried to sign in to this website, and that I was required to create a new website password.

I went to bed and dealt with it when I awoke; risk taker that I am.

But my trillion dollar philosophical question is:

Why try and hack into this website? There is no money in it.

If someone posts negative material on this site, with the assistance of Google/Blogger, I will remove it, and that will be that..,

All the articles are archived.

Concealed Quantification 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Quote

'When statements are made about a class, sometimes they are made about all the members of it, sometimes about some of them, and at other times it is not clear which is referred to.' (64).

The fallacy of concealed qualification occurs when ambiguity of  expression allows for a misunderstanding in regard to the quantity which is spoken of. (64).

Pirie's example

'Garage mechanics are crooks'. (65).

All of them? Or some of them?

Those named Chucky wear glasses.

All of them? Or some of them? Then there is the fictional evil doll, that does not...

The ambiguity involved with this fallacy is a significant reason I use the terms 'some' and 'often' in my writing. I was negatively critiqued and reviewed during my British PhD writing for using the term 'some' instead of being more affirmative with assertions and propositions. However, now viewing this documented fallacy, I reason my careful approach to assertions and propositions is academically and philosophically supported, at least some of the time, that is....

Pirie explains that this fallacy condemns entire groups based on some of their members. (65).

My example:

Evangelical Christians are right-wing, fundamentalists.

Not true, I am not, and virtually every local Pastor I know is not.

The author explains that this fallacy is used to make weak cases, supposedly look stronger. (66).

This seems a definite ambiguity type of fallacy.

Brief On Sovereignty From Arthur Pink (PhD Edit)

Venice, trekearth

Brief On Sovereignty From Arthur Pink (PhD Edit) 

Edited and revised June 18, 2016 article for an entry on academia.edu on June 17, 2023.

Additional website content from Theopedia 

Theopedia 

Cited

'Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952) "was born in Great Britain and immigrated to the U.S. to study at Moody Bible Institute...'

'Most of his works first appeared as articles in Studies in Scriptures, a monthly magazine concerned solely with the exposition of Scripture.'

'"Pink was virtually unknown and certainly unappreciated in his day. Independent Bible study convinced him that much of modern evangelism was defective. When Puritan and reformed books were generally disregarded by the Church as a whole, he advanced the majority of their principles with untiring zeal. The progressive spiritual decline of his own nation (Britain) was to him the inevitable consequence of the prevalence of a "gospel" that could neither wound (with conviction of sin) nor heal (via regeneration).

"Familiar with the whole range of revelation, Pink was rarely sidetracked from the great themes of Scripture: grace, justification, and sanctification. Our generation owes him a great debt for the enduring light he has shed, by God's grace, on the Truth of the Holy Bible." [1]'

'After Pink's death, his works were republished by The Banner of Truth Trust and reached a much wider audience as a result...'

'Yet even today, Pink is left out of most biographical dictionaries and overlooked in many religious histories.'

'Pink was an ardent Calvinist and did not shrink from preaching and teaching the "doctrines of grace" otherwise known as the Five Points of Calvinism.'

Additional on Regeneration

A key within Reformed theology, as alluded to in the Theopedia section, is regeneration. Regeneration in this theological context is noted specifically in Titus 3,

Bible Hub 

Cited

'Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ' 

'Titus 3:5 N-GFS GRK: διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας καὶ' 

Strong 'Definition: regeneration, renewal 

Usage: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.' 

From Titus 3: 5 

The main text of Strong's presents: Spiritual rebirth (figurative), spiritual regeneration (figurative). (72). 

Greek scholar Bauer documents this as: The rebirth of the redeemed person. (606). The regeneration and rebirth via the Holy Spirit. (606). 

Notably see also John 3, and 1 Peter 1 for the biblical, theological concept of new birth/regeneration. 

Wednesday, September 29, 2021: 1 Peter 1: 3 Briefly on New Birth & Regeneration 

Brief On Sovereignty From Arthur Pink (PhD Edit)

Arthur Pink (1968) defines God’s sovereignty as meaning that God is the almighty, the possessor of all power in heaven and earth, and no one can defeat his counsels. Pink (1968: 20). God has sovereign power over heaven and earth. Pink (1968: 20).

Norman Geisler explains the Bible teaches that God is in control of the entire universe, including human events. Geisler (1986: 63).

According to Jay Green (1971), in the ‘Forward’ of his book Five Points of Calvinism, many scholars within Christian theism, in particular those from Reformed and Calvinist positions, reason that God has sovereign control over his creation, and God’s ultimate plan is being accomplished throughout. Green (1971: 7). Green explains that Calvinists do not necessarily see themselves as followers of John Calvin. Green (1971: ii).

They do recognize Calvin as a great exegete and one who systemized Scripture, and a vast number of the doctrines that came from Calvin’s work are within the system known as Calvinism. Green (1971: ii).

Millard J. Erickson writes that sovereignty is a major tenent within Calvinism as God is considered the Lord of all things, and is free to do as he wills. Erickson (1994: 915). Jonathan Edwards (1729)(2006) writes that God has the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, or indifference for the greater good. Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

This sovereign control is accepted despite the obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation. Edwards (1729)(2006: 414). Attempts to harmonize strong concepts of God’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature of what he has made in regard to the problem of evil, are considered sovereignty theodicy and/or defense. John S. Feinberg being a primary source. Feinberg (1994: 124-143).

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. http://www.jonathanedwards.com

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?,  Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

PINK, ARTHUR W. (1968) The Sovereignty of God, London, The Banner of Truth Trust.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

A Danger of Vague Context

Stormy, earlier this week, colourized photo

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Chapter III

The Essential Logical Structure Continued

Cited

'Such a range of general subject mater-of terms and relation that may enter together into our thoughts-is called a content. Whatever lies outside a given content is felt to be irrelevant, incapable of adding anything but sheer nonsense.' (65).

'In ordinary thinking, the content is indefinite, mutable, and tacitly assumed.' (65).

'But in the sciences, which study the interrelations of elements within certain limited, definite realms of reality, or in logic. which deals with any given realm, and studies the possible means of making sense out of its constituents, we cannot do with a vague, indefinite, tacitly accepted context. If we want to build up an elaborate conceptual structure, we must have recognizable concepts, not subjective and incommunicable mental pictures.' (65).

Langer then states:

'For example, it is immaterial whether you imagine "absolute zero".' (66). Any mental pictures would be merely personal symbols of a concept. (66). The author admits that persons will have due to psychological factors, different conceptions of something. (66).

But she differentiates between:

Conceptions of something

&

Concepts of something

The authors calls conceptions the mental image or symbol. Concepts are the 'abstractable, public, essential form'. (66).

In my reasoning, based on this text, conception (s) is primarily subjective reasoning, while concept (s) is primarily objective reasoning.

C1 v C2 (Conception versus Concept, my add)

C1=subjective

C2=objective

This distinction is useful with the concept of 'God'.

Personalized religion (P)

P=C1

Academic religious studies (A)

A=C2

These sets are not exhaustively accurate or true, but are significantly accurate in the context of this review.

Religious studies, theology, biblical studies and philosophy of religion are legitimate academic disciplines within higher education, as are the sciences.

Private and personalized religion mainly arises from conceptions about God and is therefore primarily based on subjective, as opposed to objective reasoning.

Religious studies, theology, biblical studies and philosophy of religion place more emphasis on concepts about God and therefore are primarily based on objective as opposed to subjective reasoning.

Personally, I do have conceptions in regard to God, but my Christian faith and philosophy is primarily based on biblical, theological and philosophical concepts which I attempt to understand in context.

The danger of a vague context exists with religious content, as subjective conceptions do not necessarily equate to actual true, objective concepts in regard to God, both practically and academically. Therefore, to use Langer's type of language, it is immaterial what is imagined about God, rather recognizable concepts, Scriptural, biblical revelation being the most documented source, are essential to reasoning in regard to God.

Pull The Rug Out From Under His Own Feet

Last week

Preaching on common evangelical topics related to problems of evil and suffering, a fine evangelical pastor stated in a sermon (paraphrased) that these were not true and real needs. Instead these were considered human desires, wants and related.

The pastor's theological concept was (paraphrased) that a person only needed air, food, clothing, shelter to survive.

Red flags arose immediately in my mind...

If his view was to be consistent; things not in the category he mentioned would not be true, real needs. The pastor stated that it was a person's responsibility to solve these types of problems, that are desires and wants, not true, real needs. The responsibility for obtaining these desires and wants is pushed off to humanity with human free will.

Very non-exhaustively, for the sake of argument, let us work with the pastor's assumption in regard to true and real needs. Below is a non-exhaustive, speculative list of needs for survival:

a) As a finite human creation, being maintained and sustained in existence by the infinite, omnipotent God.

God that exists by necessity, maintaining and sustaining a contingent being.

Geivett points out Kant postulates the existence of God out of practical necessity within a system of morality. Geivett (1993: 87). In my reasoning, God as infinite and eternal, is the only being that exists by necessity; all other creations exist contingently. They do not exist by necessity.

b) A father and mother to procreate a person. Therefore, ancestors are a requirement.

c) Suitable living environment as in atmosphere, air and climate.

d) Water (Clean)

e) Food and Drink

f) Clothing

g) Shelter

h) Significant physical and mental health
---

As an adult, for arguments sake, a person could live on a desert island or in an isolated part of the planet and therefore it could be argued, strictly speaking, would not need for survival other people, family, friends or acquaintances, Many persons' at least could maintain significant physical and mental health for a significant period in isolation. A child, certain seniors and persons with special needs would likely not be able survive in solitude, but typically an adult could, based on the pastor's view put forward.

My corrective is that there are different levels of need. Some needs are survival related. Other needs are for spiritual, mental and physical peace and joy.

As Jesus Christ stated:

New American Standard Bible

Matthew 4: 4

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

New American Standard Bible

Luke 4: 4

And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

A problem I see with the pastor's view, is that it attempts, I speculate, to once again from an evangelical perspective, 'let God off the hook' for problems of evil and suffering. This is done by assuming God does not provide things degraded to a human desires and wants. This makes in error, significant human free will the primary cause of thoughts, acts and actions, instead of a secondary cause in a hypothetical chain from human nature, when in reality, almighty God is the primary cause of all things. To be clear, I reason biblically, theologically and philosophically, God is infinitely holy with pure motives in all that he wills and allows.

The pastor intellectually, it can be stated has performed the 'pull the rug out from under his own feet' because with this view, it can be implied that salvation in Christ would not be a true, real human need! In some cases, this view would let other people off the hook, if the sin of another may have contributed to problems of evil and problems of suffering. Too much emphasis for problem solving is placed on the individual as opposed to the Christian community.

A person can survive in this realm without knowing God and Christ, although again I acknowledge that God must maintain and sustain human life. Post-mortem, a person can survive in the biblically described Hades and then the lake of fire, everlastingly in the next realm, willingly apart from God and within divine judgment. (Revelation 20-22). In reality, biblical, New Testament salvation is an essential need; not for bare survival, but for meaningful, joyful, peaceful, everlasting life.

Last week

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

Today

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

Blogliasco, Italy:People&countries, Facebook

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Composition Fallacy

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62).

'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62).

'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).

Pirie explains this is fallacious as members in the orchestra might not play and perform well in unison with others. (62).

For clarity with this weighty material:

Individual to corporate

I t C (My add)

Each member is a talented musician, therefore it must be a good orchestra. (My add)

I would opine that it can take less than each member to not be a good 'team player' to cause an orchestra not to be considered good sounding, it may simply take one or so 'bad apples.'

Pirie then uses the European football example of a club transferring in top players, that are soon transferred out because they do not fit in well with the team. (62).

Therefore it would fallacious to state:

As it has the best individual talent, therefore, Team Canada will win the 2016, World Cup of Hockey.

Consider:

According to experts and commentators, Team Canada has had the best individual talent almost every 'best on best' tournament, but wins most of the tournaments, not all of them.

In my view, other propositions are required to strengthen a related argument, although with changes in terminology.

Team Canada has excellent individual talent.

Team Canada has excellent individual skill.

Team Canada has players that have won together as a team.

Team Canada has several Stanley Cup champions.

Team Canada has several Olympic Gold Medalists in Ice Hockey.

Team Canada will have home ice advantage.

Therefore:

Team Canada could reasonably win the 2016 World Cup of Hockey in Toronto.

Blackburn defines this fallacy similarly:

'...arguing because something is true of members of a group or collection, it is true of the group as a whole. (71).

The following example is provided:

'J.S. Mill appears to argue that since each person desires just their own happiness, people together desire the common happiness.  (71).

Blackburn is contrast explains that nobody desires the common happiness. (71). Blackburn means based on Mill's philosophy, and that is reasonable.

My own view would be that almost all persons desire their own happiness (some mentally ill as possible exceptions), and some persons desire the common happiness.

Logically Fallacious

'Example

Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.'

The Fallacy of Division

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 
Blackburn once again helpfully explains the converse fallacy, as he did with accident fallacy and its converse version, that I hopefully explained well in two articles.

The fallacy of division is therefore stating:

Corporate to individual

C t I (my add)

'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).

Example of fallacy:

Real Madrid won the UEFA Champions League, 2016, therefore it must have all the best players.

Logically Fallacious

'Example:

 'His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood, therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.'

Brief Principles of Symbolic Expression: Vancouver is North of Los Angeles

Italy, People&countries: Facebook

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Brief Principles of Symbolic Expression: Vancouver is North of Los Angeles

To summarize the section:

An Introduction To Symbolic Logic: The Essential of Logical Structure (pp. 45-63).

Brief Principles of Symbolic Expression (p.62)

'(1) Radical distinction between term signs and relation signs.

(2) Avoidance of false suggestion.

(3) Precedence of logical exactness over any psychological advantages.

(4) Avoidance of traditionally pre-empted signs.

(5) Due attention to distinctness, compactness, and typographical simplicity.'

Langer explains that elements connected by a relation are called its terms. (49).

Relation: 'being North of'. (49). Relation sign: 'n' my add.

Terms: Montreal is 'North of' New York. (49). Term signs 'M' and 'N'.

Terms: Vancouver is 'North of'' Los Angeles, Term signs 'V' and 'L' (My add)

Therefore a possible use of symbolic logic with the terms:

M n N

V n L

This is consistent with what was presented on the post:

Briefly On Symbolic Suggestiveness: Chicago, Denver, New York 

Langer suggests for this set either:

C, D, and N

or

C, D, and Y

not

C, D, and NY (59) 

I would prefer C, D, and N to state that Chicago is between Denver and New York

Clarity of terms and signs, as documented above is essential to avoid false suggestion and depending more on psychology than logic with terms.

Based on Langer's work, it is important to avoid confusion by not using the terms 'NY', 'NYC' or 'LA' in symbolic logic. Using the term 'LA' could be understood, despite the obvious modern cultural use of 'LA' meaning Los Angeles in various contexts, as two locations. For example, a Los Angeles/Anaheim metropolitan area. This would be a metropolitan area in the context of professional sports such as baseball and hockey, as each sport has a franchise in both markets.

Thinking out of the box:

I will admit that on this point, this text may be a little dated (1953)(1967). In 2016, I could reasonably understand the use of NY and LA in modern symbolic language without significant confusion because I reason Western culture in 2016 uses abbreviated titles more than in Langer's era of the 1950's and 1960's. Culture is now less formal and this should be considered within symbolic logic.

Two corporate examples come to mind as in the historical companies from both our era and Langer's day, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken now known as 'KFC' and Dairy Queen, now known as 'DQ'.

A concern for the date and era of documented material cited was in particular emphasized to me within the British academic system.

But, even with that acknowledgment, I will respect Langer's professional approach in regard to the matter. Most of her presentation is timeless.

Lastly, in regard to pre-empted signs, the '=' sign and like should remain with classic mathematical and philosophical forms for clarity.  At he same time compactness and clarity in presentation is essential.

Vancouver 1977: From VanCityBuzz

The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

Italy: People&countries, Facebook

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Edited on August 12, 2022 for an entry on academia.edu. Mainly a review of an entry in the Pirie text.

The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

Pirie

Immediately, one can connect the Latin term interrogationum with English terms interrogate, interrogation and related. An open dialogue is not desired by the interrogator, but instead there is a definite agenda in which certain responses are sought. This can be accomplished through an aggressive approach and by asking multiple questions, without allowing time for reasonable dialogue.

Pirie explains that this is the use of 'many questions' and 'the fallacy of the complex question.' (60).

Several questions are combined into one and these require yes or no answers and the person being asked has no opportunity to answer each question individually. (60).

This can be seen in interrogation techniques, but also in the context of debating when one debater attempts to bully the other debater through a barrage of questions while not allowing time for each point to be answered. Incidentally, in this situation, I would expose the intellectual bully and state that one will not be permitted to attempt to win an argument through this fallacious means. In other words, allow reasonable dialogue or the debate in ended.

Pirie explains that with this fallacy, in regard to the questions, 'All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively.' (61).

Not all the facts have necessarily been established with some of the questions. (61). 'Why did the chicken cross the road? (61). Why did the chicken come from KFC (my add)?  The author explains that these type of fallacious questions preclude answers such as 'There was none' (61), or 'it didn't'. (61).

'Why did Chucky, kill that other doll?', precludes 'He did not.'

This type of fallacious argumentation can be used by someone that is angry and/or emotional and wants to promote his/her agenda in an argument and does not desire to seriously ponder and consider the views of other.

Look for this fallacy within certain political, religious and personal issue debates when persons hold to positions emotionally more so than intellectually, and therefore do not want to seriously dialogue with the opponent. There is no emotional willingness to change view.

Logically fallacious

Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007) 

Cited

'Complex Question Fallacy plurium interrogationum (also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false question)

Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact. 

Logical Form: Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered.' (End citation)

My example: How many times a day do you stop believing in Reformed theology?

(There will not be a times a day that my worldview changes)

Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007)

Cited

'Exception: It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be an accepted fact. How long can one survive without water? Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.' (End citation)

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

MENSSEN S & SULLIVAN T.D  (2007) The Agnostic Inquirer: Revelation from a Philosophical Standpoint, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Complex-Question-Fallacy 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

Jude/Problem of Suffering

Castle Sanflaouro Messinia, Greece: trekearth

An aspect of my biblical training is online audio bible. The smaller books, as example, can be listened to again and again in one sitting, or while I am working out.

This section from Jude has impacted me:

Jude 1:5

Jude 5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that [a]the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, [b]subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:5 Two early mss read Jesus
Jude 1:5 Lit the second time

Jude 5 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[a] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:5 Some manuscripts although you fully knew it, that the Lord who once saved

Jude 5 King James Version (KJV)

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
---

From these three Biblical versions, it is Scripturally documented that among those that were brought out of the land of Egypt, some were destroyed because of lack of belief.

Within Jude, this Exodus group without belief is compared to fallen angels (6) and Sodom and Gomorrah (7), and therefore it can be reasoned that all three groups mentioned did not have a belief, trust and faith in God as revealed in the Hebrew Bible. This God, further revealed as triune in the New Testament. This would not be merely an intellectual belief in God, which fallen angels would posses having experienced God in a supernatural context. Strong documenting that belief here as written is tied to faith, to entrust, to trust. (77).

Although the Jude text is in a sense commenting on the older Exodus text, it is also provided in light of progressive revelation and therefore can be taken as Scripturally authoritative in this non-exhaustive article context. I do acknowledge the original Hebrew Bible revelation and for example, Exodus 32 and the 'molten calf' (NASB) episode where a significant lack of belief was demonstrated by the people of the Exodus, however, again this article is intentionally short and not-exhaustive.

From

Bible Hub

'Strong's Concordance pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech:
Verb Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.'

 '...James 2:19; acknowledgment joined to appropriate trust, absolutely, Jude 1:5; εἰς Θεόν, John 12:44; John 14:1; equivalent to to believe and embrace what God has made known either through Christ or concerning Christ: τῷ Θεῷ,'

David F. Payne explains from Jude 1: 5 that these people were 'guilty of presumption, lack of faith, or gross immortality and they had all paid the dreadful penalty.'

In New Testament terms, the unbelieving people of the Exodus are grouped with fallen angels and those from Sodom and Gomorrah. These are those that do not believe in the Lord with trusting faith.

Yesterday, I received via email a non-exhaustive theological opine that mentioned the Israelites in the Exodus context. Christians were warned against the dangers of complaining against God as it is (paraphrased) a very serious sin, a great sin. The concept I gathered, being that God meets the needs of his people and therefore not to complain because real needs will always be met. It was stated (paraphrased) that our supposed 'needs' are often 'greeds'.

In the past a pastor at the church I attend has stated that many times our supposed needs while suffering are 'felt needs'.

I can agree that at times supposed needs can be 'greeds' and 'felt needs'. This is often true in a materialistic Western culture.

However, when I connected the written theological opine with my online audio learning, based on the Jude text, it was clear that unbelieving people of the Exodus were not destroyed by God for complaining about supposed unmet needs. To be clear, the email opine did not deal directly with the Jude text.

Therefore:

I can acknowledge that complaining to and against God can be a serious and great sin. But, in light of my significant, theodicy, problem of evil and problem of suffering research and analysis, I reason that God is infinite, holy and the only being that exists by necessity. His will is always prioritized over human needs, both real and unreal needs. Unreal needs could be defined as wants.

There are real human unmet needs within the problem of suffering, such as blind persons that cannot see and starving children in Africa that do not have sufficient food and drink. Some of these persons are Christians and/or belong to Christian families and therefore could be defined as God's people from a New Testament perspective. At the same time acknowledging God is the creator of all persons and his Hebrew Bible relationship with the people of Israel.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.