Logically impossible: Fatal condition

Logically impossible: Fatal condition

Preface

This Blogger article was originally published 23122017, slight revisions 20251214.

Naples, Italy Amo, Facebook Logically impossible: 

Fatal condition

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
---

Langer explains that a proposition can only be known via another proposition. (183). Implication is a relation that only holds among propositions. (183). Propositions are regarded as postulates. (185).

2025 note: But a proposition can simply be a statement on its own. This is a proposition that is not part of an argument. An argument requires at least one proposition, known as a premise, in the context of an argument, and a conclusion. For my Wales, MPhil and PhD degrees, I wrote propositions connected to questionnaires and surveys.

End

---

A postulate needs to belong to the system, in the language of that system.
A postulate should imply further propositions of that system.
A postulate should not contradict any other accepted postulate, or any other proposition implied by another postulate. (185).

In other words, symbolic logic requires non-contradiction within its system in a universe of discourse.

Requirements

Coherence: Every proposition in the system must cohere to the established conceptual structure. (185). It must be in coherence with the rest.

Contributiveness : A postulate should contribute and have implication. (185-186).

Consistency: Most important states Langer (186). Two contradictory propositions (or premises) cannot contradict each other in a system. (186). The inconsistent is logically impossible. It is a fatal condition. (186). It is not logic at all. (186).

Independence: Postulates should be independent from each other. (186). If a proposition is deductible from a postulate already provided, then it is a theorem, a necessary fact, not another assumption. (186). Something provable in a theorem would be error to include as a postulate. (186).

I would reason that within philosophy there would be plenty of debate on what is a proposition/premise within systems and what would be a theorem. Langer explains that when a theorem needs elucidation, any proposition  implied by another proposition as granted and proved within a system is a theorem. (186-187).

Within a biblical, system and universe of discourse...

Gd = God

(∃! Gd)

God exists. Would be viewed as necessary and a theorem.

Within an atheistic, system and universe of discourse...

˜ (∃! Gd)

God does not exist. Would be viewed as necessary and a theorem.

Noted: Some atheists would state they do not know if God exists, and not definitely that God does not exist. But my example stands as valid. Some have beliefs which actually are within a range of being atheists/agnostics and do fit within my proposition. 

However:

Ag = Agnostics

(∃! Ag)

Agnostics exist. Would be viewed as necessary and a theorem.

Agnostic atheism: Wikipedia 

Cited

'Agnostic atheism – or atheistic agnosticism – is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and they are agnostic because they claim that such existence of a divine entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.'

Key sources

Harrison, Alexander James (1894). The Ascent of Faith: or, the Grounds of Certainty in Science and Religion. London: Hodder and Stroughton. p. 21. OCLC 7234849. OL 21834002M.

Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Prometheus Books. pp. 10–11. ISBN 9780879751241. 

Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781569756775. OL 24313839M.

End citations

Further

RS = Revelatory Scripture

(∃! RS) ⊨ (∃! Gd)

Revelatory Scripture exists entails God exists. From a Christian worldview, revealed, supernaturally inspired Scripture entails that God exists. Could another supernatural source provide supernatural revelation? Yes. God is reasoned to be God based on divine claims and supernatural interactions within that revelatory scripture that is considered religious history.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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) 

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

The Wright Answer (PhD Edit)

Squidooit.com: Clarksville, TN

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

Wright reasons the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that God predestines evils to occur for a particular purpose. Wright (1996: 197).

Persons do not have an answer back for God. Wright (1996: 197).

This comment from Wright is accurate from a Reformed perspective. I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur.

The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. This is where practical and empirical theology can be very helpful when they offer practical assistance to those suffering under the problem of evil.

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

James: Double-minded revisited

Now

James 1: Double-minded from May 2013

James: 1: 8

a man two-souled unsettled in all the ways of him
anhr diyucoV akatastatoV en pasaiV taiV odoiV autou 

From the May, 2013 article: 

T. Carson writes that from James 1: 5-8 wisdom is a great theme of the text and that God does give generously and without finding fault to persons, but they must ask in faith and without doubt otherwise as a doubter one is like a double-minded man (person) unstable, a drunken person, and like a tossing ship in the sea. Carson (1986: 1537).

Barclay adds that a person such as this is as one with two souls, or two minds inside. As if one believes and trusts in God and the other does not. It is as if a civil war is going on inside of such a person. Barclay (1975: 46).

Being double-minded is to have two minds in regard to God. However, for example, if one has terminal cancer and prays for healing through medical intervention and/or supernatural healing, one would likely realize that God probably will not answer the prayer with healing in this life. So this is a form of doubt. But that person demonstrates faith and belief that God could and might provide the healing and that God is benevolent regardless of what God wills, based on his Scripture, related theology and even philosophy. This would not be double-minded thinking. Double-minded thinking would be to not consistently trust in God and turn to God and therefore doubt that God would answer prayer in times of trial, including when one would hypothetically have terminal cancer.

December 19, 2017

Courson writes in regard to James 1: 5-8 that if one lacks wisdom, he/she should ask God in faith, and God will give it to him/her. (1515). It is wise for the person that has a 'civil war' (Barclay) within the spirit/mind to ask God that double-mindedness be set aside, for instead a mind set upon Christ.

This way, when something is requested via prayer (James 4: 3), it is done with Christ-like motives and not from abundantly sinful motives. The believer in the body, has a tainted nature until the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) but can be filled and guided with the Holy Spirit. Courson explains that many do not have his/her prayers answered (4: 3) because prayer should be more concerned with asking for the Lord's will for a life, than requesting a blessed life from human standards. (1527).

Bauer references the use of double-headed people in James 4:8.

δίψυχοi

From Strong's 1374

δίψυχοi δίψυχος, διψυχον (δίς and ψυχή), double-minded.

4: 8

oi 

You double-minded. Plural.

1: 8

ος

Double-minded man. Singular.

Both are in the nominative, describing the subject. Adjectives.

Bauer explains that these double-headed and more literally double-minded people stagger helplessly here and there without thoughts of doubt and hesitation (4:8) (201). This is a doubter in James 1: 8 (201).

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

CARSON, T. (1986) ‘James’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

Superstition? (PhD Edit)

Media.timeout.com: NYC 2017

Superstition?

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

David Hume (1779)(2004) discusses the danger of traditional superstition in religious presentations,[1] and doubtless a reasonable, open-minded, philosophical approach from a theist would be far more helpful within a theodicy.  He also warns against theistic claims of being able to adequately understand the Supreme Being, if there is one.[2] 

This Being’s attributes would be ‘incomprehensible’[3] and it basically impossible for the theist to understand the nature of this being.[4]  If Hume is correct,[5] constructing a theodicy would be largely meaningless.  To counter this problem, Biblical Revelation would be required in order that God reveals self in context of the issue of theodicy.[6] 

December 18, 2017

The historical manuscripts from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents, academically within the field of Religious Studies and related, connect to historical reality in a reasonable, realistic way, even if with supernatural aspects, that fictional mythological and superstition does not. If all or part of the Scripture is fabricated history, this would have to academically proven as a reasonable possibility or fact.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

---

[1] Hume (1779)(2004: 7).

[2] Hume (1779)(2004: 21-27).

[3] Hume (1779)(2004: 21).

[4] Hume (1779)(2004: 21).

[5] Hume (1779)(2004: 21).

[6] Blocher (1994: 84). German philosopher F.W.J. Schelling’s philosophy is noted within the ‘Introduction’ in Of Human Freedom to include the idea that God’s revelation is ‘a genuine metaphysical necessity.’ This is in the context of understanding what is ‘morally necessary’ concerning God. Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxxvi).