Napoleon discovered America? (Logic v. truth)

Northern Ontario: Canadian Pacific

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

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
 v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And 0
= Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

Philosopher Langer continues that logic does not bond for any fact. (189). It stands for the conceptual possibility of a system. (189). In other words, a valid system is not necessarily presenting truth, but it is logical. The valid system with premises and conclusions is logically consistent. It represents not factual certainty, but instead logical certainty or validity. (189).

Langer demonstrates the following as logical:

Napoleon discovered America
Napoleon died before 1500 A.D. (189).

Conclusion

America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

These two premises imply that America was discovered before 1500 and Langer opines that a third proposition that would be derived (a conclusion, my add) would also be logical and valid. (189).

Indeed the first two premises are historically false. (189). They are still logically consistent, while the consequent is true that America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

Langer then states:

Columbus discovered America (Note this text was written in 1953 and revised in 1967 with older historical data and assumptions)

Columbus died after 1490

Therefore

America was discovered after 1490 (189).

The author explains that the two premises were true and the conclusion were true. (189-190). But because she used the term therefore, this is an untrue and unsound assertion. (190).

The term therefore makes the argument not sound (true) and the conclusion is logically, false and invalid.

I do not think this is adequately explained enough in the textbook. She explains that therefore expresses the only untrue assertion. (190). I deduce the term is presenting a certainty which is philosophically false. The term therefore, should have been excluded.

A system built on false premises may be as logically valid as one based on facts. (190). False propositions may imply true conclusions. (190).

The only case that is not logical is true premises that imply a false conclusion. (190). As I have documented in archives:

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (s) (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (s) (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (s) (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (s) (TF) is invalid.

True premises and valid logical relations will lead to true conclusions, but the truth of premises cannot be established by logic, states philosopher, Langer. (190). This would be (TT). Validity is the only concern, as there could be (FT), (FF) premises and conclusions which were also logically valid.

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.

The threat of an educated woman?

This book review continues...

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter Seven: Borrow Credibility

Mr. Wallace writes that 'Islam is designed to keep the adherent ignorant.' (57). The author then further reasons that people of knowledge ask too many questions. (57). He opines that 80% of Muslims cannot understand the language of the Qur'an. (57). Most who follow Islam cannot read or write Arabic. Mr. Wallace explains that many Muslims parrot sounds heard in Arabic without knowing the actual meaning. (57).

Further, in many Islamic nations, females and women are not allowed to read and write. (57). The educated woman is a threat to 'an oppressive father or husband.' (57). Rather, ignorance is favoured as this means the female and woman will have a lifelong dependence on the Islamic system in power. (57).

I can agree with Mr. Wallace, that at least many orthodox forms of Islam in the world, because they follow a religion/state model through assumed divine sanction, provide power to male religious and government leaders. This power remains significantly unchallenged politically, as the Islam/state model is assumed the correct divine model, and religiously, for the same reason.

An educated female and woman, not only offers a potential critique, politically, religiously, socially and other that is not of the assumed divine paradigm, but also by ontological nature, as the opposite sex, also offers potential views and critiques that will significantly differ from those males in power.

I am certainly not on my websites promoting feminism or chauvinism, or any type of religious worldview which I reason should be free from intellectual critique. However, the beginning of the Hebrew Scripture with Genesis 1: 26-27 documents that ontologically (existence, nature) male and female are both made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, although equality does not equal sameness, the view of females and women should be acknowledged like males and men as being fully human and a significant aspect of political and religious life and existence.

Genesis 1:26-27 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [a]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Human beings versus angelic beings

Staufenim Breisgau, Germany (Not my photo)

March 13, 2018

I revised this section of my MPhil today, by adding some comments for explanation.
---

Human choice is an element in embracing the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, applied for salvation, including justification and the righteousness of Christ, imputed to believers; but no fallen human beings can autonomously choose to be saved, a human being must first be moved by the Holy Spirit to choose God.

Why God saves some sinners and not others is not totally understood. It is not by human good works, it is not by unaided human will, but by God’s grace alone, through faith, for good works and not by good works (Ephesians 1-2). It can, however, be deduced that unlike fallen angels, humanity, at least some humanity, is restorable.

I conclude from the Gospel, at least something is present outside of good works in saved humanity, that allows God to restore them, and it appears that since the Gospel was for humankind alone, fallen angels are not restorable. What is the difference between fallen human beings and fallen angels? This is of course unknown, but Thiessen suggests that angels were never a race, since they were and are asexual. They were, instead, a company. He stated: “Because they are a company and not a race, they sinned individually, and in not in some head of the race”. Thiessen (1956:192).

With this idea, Thiessen is noting that with humanity when Adam and Eve sinned, all their human offspring became sinful by nature. With angels, there was no offspring, so each angel had sinned individually making a corporate restoration work by Christ for fallen angels impossible. Under the Thiessen corporate model, Jesus could not die for fallen angels like he did for humanity, because fallen angels were not interconnected in nature as were humans. They could not be changed in nature as a group as restored human beings could be. So, Christ would have to restore each individual fallen angel by changing every angel’s individual corrupted nature.

There is the question why God could not save angels as individuals. Even though each human being was a descendant of Adam and Eve, he/she still had an individual spirit that needed a change in nature, so why could God not do this with fallen angels individually? I would rather conclude that fallen angels have existed in the supernatural realm in great measure and have experienced God in that realm. To reject God after that knowledge and experience is to put oneself beyond the possibility of restoration. Possible as in beyond what God would deem restorable for his Kingdom.

Human beings on the other hand live primarily in the natural physical realm and remain somewhat unaware of the supernatural realm, although guilty of sin. A fallen human being may have, at best, little supernatural experience with God, and certainly not have the heavenly experience of angels. Therefore, in ignorance, at least some human beings are restorable.

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Sales approach evangelism

Wales, Facebook

Sales approach evangelism

March 9, 2018

Based on a website, archive search the MPhil material below has been presented twice previously. But as I have stated, I do not believe in 'reinventing the wheel' and I will share archived material. However, I usually add a new perspective.

My new perspective for today is that at times the 'sales nature' of the North American evangelical church in evangelism, as in selling the gospel message (not necessarily for money), and I am not stating this is always error, tends to emphasize the positive nature of the gospel.

This sales approach is often error in regard to prosperity gospel approaches, and in some charismatic movements, as examples, when Scripture, and Scripture as a whole, is not taken in context.

In regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, my British theses research, the problem of evil is often not taken seriously enough in the evangelical church. Human suffering is not taken seriously enough by evangelical church sales approach evangelism which emphasizes the positive at the expense of the negative.

Of course, I do not favour an overly negative approach to sharing the gospel either.

From my MPhil 

Carson noted the tendency within western Christianity to emphasize the positive in Scripture rather than the negative. I, myself, have encountered this in the Evangelical Churches I have attended. As Carson suggests, there is often a tendency to desire to teach the nice stories in Scripture in order to build up the congregation, and be attractive to non-Christians in order to bring in new attendees. I am sympathetic to creating a positive Church environment. For some people it is a safe haven from an outside world of sin and negativity; however, I conclude that Scripture must be preached in balance, and good people do suffer in Scripture.

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology