The universe is exhausted between them

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

The continuation of text review: I am half way through this 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
---

The author summarizes on page 193. In symbolic logic, every class includes itself; every class includes the sub-classes of the sub-classes; every class is included in a universe class and includes an empty class. (193). The universe class is not the same as the universe of discourse. In other words the universe of discourse contains the universe class. The universe class does not contain the universe of discourse. Every class has a complement and the class and its complement are mutually exclusive. The universe is exhausted between them. (193). In other words, every class has a non-class.

Langer explains that by definition, mutual inclusion is called equality the sum of two elements a and b, which is written a + b and the product is shown as a x b. (193). Together they are the whole system of classes. (193).

Any two classes have a sum and product, if they are mutually exclusive (In symbolic logic) the product is 0. (193).

I reason based on Langer in regard to every class:

0 + 0 = 0
0 x 0 = 0

Based on my interpretation of Langer, if we created a universe of discourse  with a universe class of those within the Kingdom of God, the non-class would be those not within the Kingdom of God. This would equate to all of humanity. Or in other words, 0 persons would not be within the universe class.

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class cr (Christians) 1, 0 is included in a. (a + b).

There is a class of no Christians, in this universe of discourse.

In other philosophical words:

In these classes, Langer never assumes a universe class where there is not a non-version within.

Futurology

Majorca: Facebook

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

Futurology

After a day of ministry work, I thought I would seek to write a new article, as in dealing with a new term, to me.

Philosopher Blackburn explains that futurology is the activity of predicting the state of the world at a future time. (151). This is often considered a pseudo-science (151) as this approach deals with complex academic fields such as social, political, economical, technological, nature, the environment.

Implied from Blackburn is that the approach is too simplistic and naive to be real science, in many cases.

What comes to mind, non-exhaustively under the futurology umbrella:

Those that attempt to predict radical changes in technological trends. (For example, that computers will eventually control humankind).

Those who predict various apocalypses, within the Christian Church and outside, without generally giving proper intention and attention to eschatology and the book of Revelation is context.

Idealists that would like to replace religion and God (s) with human utopias of the future.

Some of those that that hold to scientism and reason that in the end science can solve all human problems and therefore there is no fallen, corrupted, human nature in need to the salvific work of Christ in atonement and resurrection. No need for God or a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22).

Britannica

Futurology, in the social sciences, the study of current trends in order to forecast future developments. While the speculative and descriptive aspects of futurology are traceable to the traditions of utopian literature and science fiction, the methodology of the field originated in the “technological forecasting” developed near the end of World War II, of which Toward New Horizons (1947) by Theodore von Kármán is an important example.

Points for me, I mentioned utopia before I read it in Britannica or anywhere...

Taking Jihad & Warfare literally

Book review continued:

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

Mr. Wallace reasons that the best English source for learning about Islam is not the Qu'ran, nor it is the Sunnah. (58). The author suggests a classic text on Islamic law titled Reliance of the Traveller (ROT). (58)

I have noted my academic approach that original primary sources should still be cited, but can acknowledge the importance of ROT.

This text, according to Mr. Wallace will state an Islamic law, provide an interpretation, and then provide a source (s) from the Qu'ran and/or the Sunnah. (58). Mr. Wallace explains the ROT (Reliance of the Traveller), (1991) documents that it is an obligation for every able-bodied man to participate in Jihad. (74).

Note in context this is warfare Jihad, not the idea of inner struggle Jihad, for the Muslim.

Citation from ROT

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

09.4 Those called upon (0: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane. (601).

Citation from ROT

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

o9.R Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

'Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9:29)...(602)

End citations

Based on Mr. Wallace's text and the ROT which summarizes law from the Qu'ran and Sunnah, any Islamic mosque, organization or individual that takes these teachings reasonably literally in regard to warfare, if holding to consistent theology, will in actuality oppose Western values of democracy, liberty and freedom of religion.

Fortunately, I reason this will not be the majority of Western Muslims, that will likely take a more liberal approach to Islamic scripture and embrace many secular values in regard to democracy, liberty and freedom of religion.

Reliance of the Traveller, (1991) Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. 

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

Genesis 1: 26 and the Trinity

YVR approach

Last Sunday, our church featured a fine, educational sermon on the Trinity. Genesis 1: 26 (a) was referenced from the English Standard Version:

Genesis 1:26 English Standard Version (ESV) 

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Footnotes: Genesis 1:26 The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam 

Courson, via his commentary, is in basic agreement on what was preached on Sunday. He explains that in Genesis 1: 26 (a) the name God is translated from the Hebrew (In English, my add) as Elohim El is in singular form and Elohim refers to three or more. (4). Courson reasons the Trinity is being referenced here. (4).

Hebrew Bible scholar, Hamilton, acknowledges that based on 1: 26, God is multiple in nature. (22). Based on exegesis he reasons it is impossible to state that it is a reference to the Trinity. (22). Several unrealistic possibilities are offered as alternative interpretations (mythological interpretation as in God to other gods, or the Earth being in partnership with God, or God and the angels creating, or God speaking of his majesty in plural, or the plural of divine self-deliberation) and then finally Hamilton reasons that most likely 'us' refers to the fullness or plurality within the Godhead. (23). Perhaps God is referencing the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1:2 as the Spirit of God moved upon the earth...(23). Hamilton is not denying the Trinity, but he does reason that it is not revealed until the New Testament revelation. (23). Hamilton, I reason, would not necessarily agree with Courson that multiple in nature meant at least three, based on exegesis.

I would state that the Trinity is foreshadowed in Genesis.

The pastor on Sunday stated that God was in eternal relationship. I agree. I would like to state that God as infinite and eternal did not have eternal time to be in triune relationship. God did not have an eternal past to ponder in Trinity on whether or not he would create humanity, the universe and solar time, or a type of time for finite angels, without infinite knowledge, to reason in.

God has infinite knowledge and infinite, eternal, triune relationship. God simply is and created the finite, including finite humanity, the finite universe and finite time, both solar time and time within the spiritual realm for angelic beings, to reason from point A to point B. God may have created finite angelic beings within a type of finite time prior to creating the physical universe of time, matter and energy.

It is error to hold to a view that God reasoned in infinite time because this is a fatal problem of vicious regress and this is a fatal problem that is not reasonably solved. God simply reasoned and yet had infinite knowledge and fellowship within the Trinity.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.