Logic is concerned entirely with concepts, not conceptions

Naples: trekearth: I have tentative plans for an England-Denmark trip next year, which may have a ministry angle, but one does not know how employment will change and develop. I would have liked to visit Italy, but my travel companion favours Denmark, which is also on my list of places to see.

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

Quote

'Every discourse, no matter how fragmentary or casual, moves in a certain context of inter-related ideas. In ordinary thinking this context is indefinite and shifting.' (79).

'The psychological context of our thoughts is largely private and personal.' (79). It is noted in the cases when two people are discussing the same event...

'They have, then, different conceptions.' (80). But even with some limited significant understanding of each other's conceptions they 'may embody the same concept.' (79).

In light of this fallen, sinful, corrupted human realm from a Biblical (Genesis, Romans, Revelation as examples) perspective and a secular perspective that human beings, are ontologically (existence and being) imperfect; historically and presently, different human conceptions between various groups and persons has led to the fueling of problems of evil and suffering.

Reasonable, clear and concise communication so that persons 'may embody the same concept' is a good and profitable. Romans 12: 18, without proof texting outside of context, is relevant here: New American Standard Bible;  'If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.'

Being at peace with others is often dependent on having clear and concise dialogue to understand concepts in the same way, or at least similar way. This objective approach, I attempt, at least, in all my academic research, reading and writing.

'Logic is concerned entirely with concepts, not conceptions'. (79). Bold my add.

One of my philosophical views I live by is that although both concepts and conceptions are important, in the pursuit of reason and truth, concepts are more important.

Langer titles this, as noted previously, on this site 'the universe of discourse' which is free from 'private and accidental aspects.' (79).

'The relations which obtain among such elements are called the constituent relations of the formal context.' (79). This leads to 'elementary propositions of the discourse.' (79), which have a value of truth or falsity. (80).

'The relations which hold among elementary propositions are not, the constituent relations in the formal context, but are logical relations. (80).

By logical relations, Langer is referring the symbols within symbolic logic.

page 80

cited

Logical relation symbols

Conjunction (.) Conjunctions within the universe of discourse are what 'makes sense' between constituent relations. (80). In other words, what makes sense between the concepts and terms documented.

Disjunction (V)

'The assertion of one proposition or the other.' (75). This means one, the other or both is true, at least one of the two propositions is true. (75).

V is an accepted symbols for either way.  (75).

~=false

In other words ~ equals false. This is the tilde symbol.

 ~ (A nt B) V ~ (B nt A) (75)

It is either false that A is north of B or that B is north of A...

The V means that either way one of the propositions is false. Or they both could be false. Equally north (in latitude, my add) (75).

⊃ is the symbol for implies (75) and implication (80).

(A nt B) ⊃ ~ (B nt A)

A is north of B, implies it is false that B is north of A.

Again, A and B could both be equally north.

I am trying to simplify this is much as possible. But I am learning as I read, and frankly academic philosophy and theology texts take some intense thinking. There is just no reasonable way around it.

Therefore, I present this in small segments and I am alternating article content with different text reviews and my own more original articles.

I understood problem of evil concepts better in my PhD thesis than my MPhil thesis and the concept of academic progression should be accepted in working through symbolic logic.

I have admitted that I would write my online articles if I had zero readers, but then again I prefer not to write that online diary.

Matthew, Luke: Timing is everything/Discrimination: Unreasonable & Reasonable

Chateau Saint-Marie, France-trekearth

Matthew, Luke: Timing is everything

An interesting concept was discussed in this recent online sermon.

Isaiah 33-35 July 27

Matthew 11: 1-7

New American Standard Bible

11 When Jesus had finished [a]giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and [b]preach in their cities. 2 Now when John, [c]while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to Him, “Are You the [d]Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” 4 Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the [e]gospel preached to them. 6 And blessed is he [f]who does not [g]take offense at Me.”

Luke 7: 20-23

New American Standard Bible

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

Footnotes: Luke 7:22 The Greek word traditionally translated leprosy was used for various diseases affecting the skin.

In his commentary, from Matthew, Jon Courson opines:

'Look around guys' said Jesus. And look it up. See that Isaiah prophesied the very things you are seeing: the blind receiving their sight, the lame walking, lepers being cleansed, the deaf hearing, and the dead rising. Look around, look it up, and tell John that the prophecies are being fulfilled and the kingdom is being seen-although in a different way than was perhaps expected.' (78).

So John was rebuked here. (78).

R.T. France writes that Jesus is clearly alluding to Isaiah 29-35, here. (192).

From Luke:

'...it was as if Jesus' message to John was: 'You've been hearing about the about the things that are happening, and yet you're only concerned about what is not happening" And the same is true of us.' (334).

Pastor Courson noted (paraphrased) in the Isaiah sermon that John was citing verses in regard to captives being freed from prison, and yet here John the Baptist was in prison, and about to be executed for displeasing King Herod.

However, from the sermon, the captives being set free aspect of Scripture was not being dealt with in the context of John being in prison. But other aspects of Scripture were being honoured by the Messiah, Jesus Christ in his gospel ministry, in submission to God the Father and with God, the Holy Spirit.

Jesus' sayings:

Mark:

6 And blessed is he [f]who does not [g]take offense at Me.

Luke:

23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

Are relevant to me as well. Pastor Courson is correct in stating...'and yet you're only concerned about what is not happening" And the same is true of is,' (334).

A theological key here is that 'timing is everything'. In this story from two sources, it was not God's, divine time to free John the Baptist from prison, rather it was time for John to be a martyr.

But it was God's divine time to provide other healings, miracles and demonstrations of the Kingdom of God. This is relevant in light of the problem of evil and actual unmet human ontological (human existence and being) needs. It is a better theological approach to state that unmet needs are not being met by God, due to God's timing, as opposed to, in error the rather intellectual lazy approach to categorise all unmet needs as simply 'felt needs'.

There is a difference between being blind and needing sight, an ontological unmet need; as opposed to owning a red Toyota and 'needing' (desiring) a red Ferrari.

France states: 'It took spiritual discernment not to be 'put off' by Jesus...' (193).

In light of problems of evil and suffering, being 'put off' by Jesus Christ and by God is a very reasonable possibility. Spiritual discernment needs to work in conjunction with prayer and biblical study, which are the two most important factors in order to work through disappointment with God.

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

FRANCE, R.T. (1985)(2001) Matthew, IVP/Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Warwick Castle: 1995

Discrimination: unreasonable & reasonable

Discrimination Wikipedia

Quote:

'In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.'

Philosophically, I can reason that unreasonable discrimination is wrong.

There is no reasonable need for the 'White National Football Players Association', because the colour of the athlete is irrelevant in the context of playing in the National Football League and protecting a player's rights. The individual merit of all players, in context, is the same, regardless of colour.

The 'White National Football Players Association' would be an example of unreasonable discrimination.

When I decided to attempt to join the Evangelical Philosophy Society and the Evangelical Theological Society, a notable requirement was that I had to agree with brief evangelical doctrinal statements with each society. I also had to have earned at least a Master's degree in each discipline as per application.

If I could not meet either one of those two noted criteria, I would be denied membership. I would not merit membership into either society.

In regard to these two societies, this would be reasonable discrimination. It is fine to discriminate as in to recognize relevant distinction in context.

If one cools down and puts rationality above socially-charged, cultural, reaction, a person will find cases of reasonable and unreasonable discrimination extant. Some discrimination exists to protect the integrity of organizations within the Western democratic political system, just as, at times, forbidding unreasonable discrimination also protects the integrity of organizations within the Western political system.

Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful

Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful

Preface

Photo: University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Official

Revised today

Presented from a theological and philosophical perspective while citing scientific sources.

Yesterday, I received another short and informative newsletter from Reasons to Believe, a scientific, non-Darwinian Evolution, Biblical ministry.

Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful 

I am going to briefly discuss 'Did the Universe Have a Beginning'? By Jeff Zweerink.

I am not a scientist and do not have any science degrees. I did have to complete some limited scientific work for my British Doctoral work, such as researching scientific journals with articles on consciousness. These findings were part of the finished thesis.

The article author states that he was challenged by a published scientific paper, showed to him, 'indicating that the universe did not have a beginning'. (1). The idea presented is that 'scientists need a quantum theory of gravity to know with total certainty whether or not the universe had a beginning (a non-controversial and correct statement) and yet the sufficiently developed theories of quantum gravity point to a universe with no beginning!' (1).

The author then notes that 'none of the current models is yet established'. (1).

As well, 'the experimental data to test the validity of those models still resides in the far distant future, at best.' (2).

The author further explains that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2). But eventually the scientific community, had models that included a beginning. (2).

Wikipedia

'In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.'.

Michigan State University

'What is quantum physics? '

'Quantum physics is necessary to understand the properties of solids, atoms, nuclei, subnuclear particles and light. In order to understand these natural phenomena, quantum principles have required fundamental changes in how humans view nature. To many philosophers (Einstein included), the conflict between the fundamental probabilistic features of quantum mechanics and older assumptions about determinism provided a cognitive shock that was even more unsettling that the revised views of space and time brought by special relativity.

The word quantum refers to discreteness, i.e., the existence of individual "lumps" as opposed to a continuum. In Newtonian physics, all quantities are allowed to be continuous. For instance, particles can have any momentum and light can have any frequency. A quantum is a discrete packet of energy, charge, or any other quantity. '

Oxford Dictionary of Science

Quantum gravity is

'An aspect of quantum theory that attempts to incorporate the gravitational field as described by the general theory of relativity; no such theory has yet been accepted...there is some evidence that superstring theory can provide a quantum theory of gravity free of infinities.'  (679).

Free of infinities...

The text further states that it is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).

It is then explained that black holes can also be investigated in regard to quantum gravity theory. (679).

I cannot comment as a scientist, but as a theologian and philosopher:

In regard to the idea that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2)  This may be a case of philosophy within science or philosophizing within science, in other words, starting with the premise that the universe has no beginning and is infinite and setting out to find reasonable scientific proof.

This therefore could be an approach based in philosophy and not just empirical science. This allows me at least some room to comment.

It is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).

From the Oxford source, this reasonably recent 2010 citation clearly indicates that within this scientific field of study, the current default conclusion based on premises is to consider quantum gravity within the very early universe that began after the big bang.

The Oxford text defines evolution as 'the gradual process by which by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms...' (304). The text reasons this is at least for the last 300 million years.

Evolution (including microevolution; change within a species or group) by definition implies finite.

The infinite is limitless and does not evolve or expand. It simply is....

Therefore any type of (including evolutionary) scientific model is doubtful to empirically prove an infinite universe.

Further...

The idea of infinite is compatible with God described in Genesis 1, as in the beginning creating the heaven and the earth. God existing before the material universe, time and matter. Universe defined as ' All the matter, energy, and space that exists.' (847).

Even if the Biblical Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and New Testaments could be academically discredited as historical, religious history, which is not my academic position; an infinite cause behind the material universe is still the most reasonable philosophical and theological explanation for finitude.

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

Reasons To Believe Newsletter, July/August, 2016, Covina, California.

Demonic faith (non-exhaustive)

Buenos Aires: Waterfront Cities of the World

At Northview Community Church this morning, the sermon was in regard to three signs of true Christian belief.

This was reasonably presented as:

Profession

Practice

Perseverance

As with this article and my website posts in general, these three points are non-exhaustive.

A person could state rightly that love and a concern for goodness, justice and truth are also signs of a legitimate, Biblical, Christian walk. One could state that a person needs to demonstrate good 'fruit'.

Galatians 5:22-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 English Standard Version (ESV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 King James Version (KJV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

But for the purposes of a sermon, less than one hour in length, the three 'p' 's sufficed.

Romans 10: 9-10 was referenced:

Romans 10:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 [a]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [b]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [c]resulting in salvation.

Romans 10:9 English Standard Version (ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Biblical keys from this section that demonstrate true Christian belief for salvation, are therefore confession, belief in the Biblical, historical Jesus Christ (belief in the Biblical God and the atoning work of Christ, implied), belief in the resurrection of Christ.

The sermon touched upon the books of James and Hebrews. From James 2, the pastor correctly noted that demonic faith was not sufficient as demons cannot be saved. It is a trusting, faith-based belief, not a mere intellectual belief that saves any person.

From Hebrews the concept mentioned was that some have confessed Christ but now deny him.

Doubtless this is Biblically and historical true as the pastor also referenced the false teachers from Jude. See also 2 Peter 2 (my add).

Hebrews 6 New American Standard Bible

Therefore leaving the [a]elementary teaching about the [b]Christ, let us press on to [c]maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, [d]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned. 

This passage is debated.

I gather from the sermon the pastor would view these as people that have never had a saving faith in Christ, but rather had demonic faith, like the demons. An intellectual, matter of fact, faith.

This is a reasonable biblical position.

As counter: The following

7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned. 'worthless and close to being cursed'.

Reads very much like: (1 Corinthians considered by many Biblical scholars to have been written by Paul and Hebrews, perhaps so, or a Pauline associate).

1 Corinthians 3:15

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This same pastor, I heard on an online sermon stated that the 1 Corinthians judgement was in regard to church leaders/leadership.

I reason, it is also reasonable that Biblically, those discussed in Hebrews 6 are non-repentant believers.

I mentioned to another pastor, in agreement, that a true Christian always confesses biblical belief. So called former Christians that now deny Jesus Christ, in my mind never had biblical, trusting, faith-based belief.  Mental illness, perhaps could change the thinking process of a person, but in spirit at least, trusting, faith-based, belief would exist.

As the sermon pastor admitted, none of us are perfect. That means none of us are perfect in repentance.

I therefore reason that in biblical, Christian belief, general repentance to God is an essential sign of salvation. Confessing self as sinner, implies repentance.

However, specific repentance of each and every sin is not essential for trusting, faith-based belief, although to be clear, it is a command.

Acts 3: 19-21 New American Standard Bible

19“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

Repentance is an aspect of biblical salvation as turning from sin, and accepting the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to a person. The salvific work is done by God, not by human acts of faith. Technically speaking we are regenerated through the Holy Spirit (John 3) and saved by the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to us. Repentance is via a regenerated human nature and will.

On a practical theological basis we can realize that due to universal sinful natures and sinful choices, human beings will not 'catch' every sin to repent of, and as well sometimes because of spiritual blindness, persons will not always specifically repent of sinful choices via sinful nature. The atoning and resurrection work of Christ covers a regenerated person that therefore demonstrates general repentance within trusting, faith-based, belief.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.