Greg's first deductive syllogism

[Greg]

No, the title doesn't mean this thread is my first experience with deductive syllogisms

What if you found a valid and sound deductive syllogism that drew a conclusion you think conflicted with the bible? Would you be open to the possibility that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine? Or would you contradict the Calvinist view that logic arises from God's nature, and suddenly discover that logic isn't god's nature after all?

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins

If you think premise 1 is false, why?

If you think premise 2 is false, why?

If you think the conclusion doesn't logically follow, why?

 

[Arial]

No, the title doesn't mean this thread is my first experience with deductive syllogisms

What if you found a valid and sound deductive syllogism that drew a conclusion you think conflicted with the bible? Would you be open to the possibility that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine? Or would you contradict the Calvinist view that logic arises from God's nature, and suddenly discover that logic isn't god's nature after all?

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins

If you think premise 1 is false, why?

If you think premise 2 is false, why?

If you think the conclusion doesn't logically follow, why?

That isn't actually Calvinism. You have slanted the wording of your premises by confusing your interpretation of Calvinism from a purely horizontal perspective when the very core of Calvinism is vertical.

So, if P1 and p2 are true then of course c will be true and, in a sense, they are. But they do not express Calvinism.

The correct Calvinist/Reformed view would be:

P1- Major Premise: The elect will do anything God wills them to do.
P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
C - The elect will repent of their sins.

 

[Greg]

Let's go at this one at a time. Please specify what you believe is factually false about P1.

 

[Arial]

Let's go at this one at a time. Please specify what you believe is factually false about P1.

Do you mean say it slower or say it again?

 

[Greg]

No, I had to specify we do this "again", because you haven't fulfilled your obligation as the opponent here.

The first premise for MY version of argument, was

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills them to do.

I deliberately constructed the argument to make the "should" a necessary part of it.

The conclusion to a deductive syllogism can be attacked in 3 ways:

1) You prove the first premise is factually incorrect, or
2) You prove the second premise is factually incorrect, or
3) You prove that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle

So let's take this one step at a time: Do you think P1 in my version of the argument was incorrect, yes or no? If yes, please explain why its incorrect.

 

[Arial]

No, I had to specify we do this "again", because you haven't fulfilled your obligation as the opponent here.

The first premise for MY version of argument, was

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills them to do.

I deliberately constructed the argument to make the "should" a necessary part of it.

The conclusion to a deductive syllogism can be attacked in 3 ways:

1) You prove the first premise is factually incorrect, or
2) You prove the second premise is factually incorrect, or
3) You prove that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle

So let's take this one step at a time: Do you think P1 in my version of the argument was incorrect, yes or no? If yes, please explain why its incorrect.

Your demand for a "yes or no" answer is misplaced because it assumes your first premise is logically well-formed. It isn't.

Premise 1 hinges on the word "should" which is ambiguous. In formal logic, an ambiguous term invalidates any claim to soundness unless it is clearly defined and used consistently. You haven't done that.

If "should" denotes moral obligation, then your premise is trivially true: of course the elect is obligated to obey God. But in that case, hour syllogism proves nothing beyond a basic moral norm that no one disputes.

If "should" is meant to carry stronger force---implying that the elect will in fact do whatever God wills---then you premise is false, because you are collapsing distinct categories (moral command vs. actual outcome) that must be kept separate in any coherent theological framework.

So, your premise is not something I can simply label; "true" or "false". It is logically defective due to equivocation. And a deductive argument built on an equivocal premise cannot be sound, regardless of is formal validity.

You are insisting that I attack one of the three standard components of a syllogism, but you've overlooked a more basic issue: your argument fails at the level of semantic precision. Until you define your terms, there is no determinate proposition to affirm or deny.

I am not avoiding your question---you haven't yet asked a logically coherent one. The next move isn't mine, it is yours. Define your terms and defend your premise.

 

[atpollard]

P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.

“should” is too imprecise a term for a logical argument. It could run the gamut of meanings from “statistical probability” to “recommended” to “obligatory duty” to “polite suggestion” to “conditional hypothetical”. Some possible meanings are true, while others are false.

Thus P1 is flawed and potentially false.

 

[Josheb]

What if you found a valid and sound deductive syllogism that drew a conclusion you think conflicted with the bible?

Not possible.

Would you be open to the possibility that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine?

Define your terms (correctly). LOTS of people do not correctly understand the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy (beginning with the fact the call it "biblical" inerrancy and then focus commentary in the Bible).

Or would you contradict the Calvinist view that logic arises from God's nature, and suddenly discover that logic isn't god's nature after all?

Neither. And, btw, logic arising from divine ontology isn't strictly a Calvinist pov.

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins

If you think premise 1 is false, why?

If you think premise 2 is false, why?

If you think the conclusion doesn't logically follow, why?

Gotta define your terms. What, specifically, is meant by "God," and "God wills"? Define "the elect," "repent," and "sins."

 

[Greg]

Your demand for a "yes or no" answer is misplaced because it assumes your first premise is logically well-formed. It isn't.

Premise 1 hinges on the word "should" which is ambiguous. In formal logic, an ambiguous term invalidates any claim to soundness unless it is clearly defined and used consistently. You haven't done that.

If "should" denotes moral obligation, then your premise is trivially true: of course the elect is obligated to obey God. But in that case, hour syllogism proves nothing beyond a basic moral norm that no one disputes.

Yes, the "should" denotes moral obligation.

If "should" is meant to carry stronger force---implying that the elect will in fact do whatever God wills---then you premise is false, because you are collapsing distinct categories (moral command vs. actual outcome) that must be kept separate in any coherent theological framework.

No, "should" denoted only more obligation

So, your premise is not something I can simply label; "true" or "false". It is logically defective due to equivocation. And a deductive argument built on an equivocal premise cannot be sound, regardless of is formal validity.

But now that I've clarified what I meant by "should", any existing equivocation thus disappears.

You are insisting that I attack one of the three standard components of a syllogism, but you've overlooked a more basic issue: your argument fails at the level of semantic precision. Until you define your terms, there is no determinate proposition to affirm or deny.

Which I resolved by supplying the required precision.

I am not avoiding your question---you haven't yet asked a logically coherent one. The next move isn't mine, it is yours. Define your terms and defend your premise.

...If "should" denotes moral obligation, then your premise is trivially true: of course the elect is obligated to obey God. But in that case, hour syllogism proves nothing beyond a basic moral norm that no one disputes.

I appreciate your concession that by intending "should" as moral obligation, the syllogism indicates a "moral norm that nobody disputes". Now the trouble is whether somebody will dispute an identical syllogism, in which the "should" also means "moral obligation", but it also challenges a certain doctrinal belief. I repeat the original syllogism to make it as easy as possible for you to compare and thus discover why you think the two syllogisms demand different results:

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins
  
  
• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler should murder Jews

Here, "should" means "moral obligation", which definition is the one you said would resolve the problem in the prior syllogism and turn it into a moral statement nobody disagrees with.

And if you start having problems with the second syllogism, I'm going to ask why you didn't "notice" the same problem in the first one.

Since you objected on the basis of ambiguity ("should" was not specified to be moral obligation or "will"), I will restate the syllogism and include the required precision:

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect are morally obligated to do anything God wills them to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect are morally obligated to repent of their sins

That's the form of the more precise syllogism you conceded would be one nobody disputes. Since that first syllogism has been restated by supplying the required precision, here's the next syllogism, and it too reflects the same form of required precision. It refers to conditions that took place in the past:

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God willed for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews

Remember, this is a deductive syllogism. If you can't show the incorrectness of either premise, or show that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, the conclusion is reality. No amount of "God's hidden will changes everything, see Deuteronomy 29:29" can overcome the truth of a conclusion in a syllogism that is both valid and sound.

 

[Greg]

Not possible.

You think your God can justify unqualified confidence. Can you? Seems to me if you view yourself as lowly and limited as the bible says you are, confident unqualified declarations that its not possible to come across a valid and sound syllogism that conflicts with the bible, are uncalled for. They don't sound humble, they sound like "I speak by the Spirit of God..." and yet you'd expressly disclaim divine inspiration.

Define your terms (correctly). LOTS of people do not correctly understand the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy (beginning with the fact the call it "biblical" inerrancy and then focus commentary in the Bible).

Then you must think the Christian scholars who formed the ICBI in Chicago in 1978 "do not correctly understand the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy". The acronym stands for "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy". Conservative Inerrantists are in more disagreement than I realized.

Neither. And, btw, logic arising from divine ontology isn't strictly a Calvinist pov.

Well I can't worry about that. I know that most people here, at least those who interact with me the most, are Calvinists.

Gotta define your terms. What, specifically, is meant by "God," and "God wills"? Define "the elect," "repent," and "sins."

Naw, I modified my syllogisms to satisfy Ariel's demand for more precision. Read her response and my reply.

And under your pretense of hesitation to move forward, for need of greater definition of terms, an unbeliever could justify delaying repenting on the grounds that, as 2000 years of internal fracturing of Christianity conclusively proves, whatever way the bible defines its terms on salvation and numerous other subjects, needs greater precision before safe conclusions can be drawn. The most potent example being Trinitarians who disagree with each other on Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

[His clay]

Yes, the "should" denotes moral obligation.



No, "should" denoted only more obligation



But now that I've clarified what I meant by "should", any existing equivocation thus disappears.



Which I resolved by supplying the required precision.



I appreciate your concession that by intending "should" as moral obligation, the syllogism indicates a "moral norm that nobody disputes". Now the trouble is whether somebody will dispute an identical syllogism, in which the "should" also means "moral obligation", but it also challenges a certain doctrinal belief. I repeat the original syllogism to make it as easy as possible for you to compare and thus discover why you think the two syllogisms demand different results:

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins
  
  
• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler should murder Jews

Here, "should" means "moral obligation", which definition is the one you said would resolve the problem in the prior syllogism and turn it into a moral statement nobody disagrees with.

And if you start having problems with the second syllogism, I'm going to ask why you didn't "notice" the same problem in the first one.

Since you objected on the basis of ambiguity ("should" was not specified to be moral obligation or "will"), I will restate the syllogism and include the required precision:

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect are morally obligated to do anything God wills them to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect are morally obligated to repent of their sins

That's the form of the more precise syllogism you conceded would be one nobody disputes. Since that first syllogism has been restated by supplying the required precision, here's the next syllogism, and it too reflects the same form of required precision. It refers to conditions that took place in the past:

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God willed for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews

Remember, this is a deductive syllogism. If you can't show the incorrectness of either premise, or show that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, the conclusion is reality. No amount of "God's hidden will changes everything, see Deuteronomy 29:29" can overcome the truth of a conclusion in a syllogism that is both valid and sound.

"anything God wills" (in the 2nd half of both major premises)

Is this referring to anything God wills to be (ontological quality) and thusly the person does? Is this referring to anything God has decided to obligate (ethical requirement) the creature to do?

You can probably see that I'm making a simple is/ought distinction and asking which your statement is communicating. Or perhaps you are intending to communicate something else.

My concern is nearly the same as @Arial . Equivocation and conflation is probably the most common tactic in this type of argument.

A clear case in point is that God willed the crucifixion to be (Acts 4:28), but He did not will that murder be morally acceptable or that the people ought to have done what they did. "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

 

[John Bauer]

What if you found a valid and sound deductive syllogism that drew a conclusion you think conflicted with the Bible?

Since a “sound” argument is one with a conclusion that follows validly from true premises, it is impossible for there to be one that conflicts with Scripture since both are of the same God. Therefore, any perceived conflict would indicate an erroneous interpretation, which is a human enterprise and categorically distinct from divine revelation (which cannot err). Humans can err, and often do.

Would you contradict the Calvinist view that logic arises from God's nature?

We need to qualify that statement (“arising from”), because Calvinists do not believe that logic is a thing existing alongside God, nor that logic is manufactured by God’s nature or produced as a by-product. We believe the laws of logic reflect the immutability, consistency, intelligibility, and non-contradictory character of God’s own being and thought (e.g., 2 Tim 2:13); in that sense, logic is grounded in God rather than “arising from” God.

All right, let’s look at your syllogism:

Premise 1: The elect should do anything God wills them to do.
Premise 2: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
Conclusion: The elect should repent of their sins.

I see from the discussion in the thread that you define “should” in terms of moral obligation. What is not clear is how you are defining God’s will. Since we are talking about moral obligation, I assume you mean his preceptive will. If so, then Premise 2 is straight-forward: God commands repentance, which morally obligates the elect to repent.

But if you mean God’s decretive will, then the argument commits a category mistake (so talking about moral obligation is fundamentally confused). Your follow-up syllogism makes the category mistake very clear:

Premise 3: Hitler should do anything God wills him to do.
Premise 4: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
Conclusion: Hitler should murder Jews.

If by “God wills” you are referring to his preceptive will, then the argument is probably not sound, the problem being Premise 4. You would need to show that God commanded Hitler to murder Jews.

If you were referring to his decretive will, then the argument incoherent, the problem being Premise 3. It is incoherent to speak of a moral obligation to obey God’s decree as such. God’s decree determines what will occur; it is not a precept defining what ought to occur.

 

[Arial]

That's the form of the more precise syllogism you conceded would be one nobody disputes. Since that first syllogism has been restated by supplying the required precision, here's the next syllogism, and it too reflects the same form of required precision. It refers to conditions that took place in the past:

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God willed for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews

Your syllogism fails because you equivocate on the term "God wills."

In the repentance syllogism, "God wills" refers to his moral/perceptive will---what he commands and approves. In the Hitler syllogism, "God willed Hitler to murder Jews" can only mean decretive/ providential will---what he sovereignly permitted or ordained in history, since God nowhere commanded Hitler to murder Jews.

You have therefore changed the meaning of the middle term between premises, committing equivocation and invalidating the argument. The conclusion only follows if God morally commanded Hitler to murder Jews, which Scripture explicitly denies: "You shall not murder."

Remember, this is a deductive syllogism. If you can't show the incorrectness of either premise, or show that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, the conclusion is reality. No amount of "God's hidden will changes everything, see Deuteronomy 29:29" can overcome the truth of a conclusion in a syllogism that is both valid and sound.

No amount of God's hidden will can overcome the truth of a conclusion in a syllogism that is both valid and sound is true. But a syllogism is only sound if the terms remain consistent and the premises are true. Yours does not meet that requirement.

Premise 2 is false if interpreted morally. God did not morally will Hitler to murder Jews.
Premise 2 is irrelevant if interpreted decretively: Decretive will does not establish moral obligation. Either way your argument collapses.

The whole trap depends on forcing me to accept that everything God wills in any sense becomes morally obligatory. Christianity has never taught that.

 

[Arial]

And under your pretense of hesitation to move forward, for need of greater definition of terms, an unbeliever could justify delaying repenting on the grounds that, as 2000 years of internal fracturing of Christianity conclusively proves, whatever way the bible defines its terms on salvation and numerous other subjects, needs greater precision before safe conclusions can be drawn. The most potent example being Trinitarians who disagree with each other on Calvinism and Arminianism.

All of that is completely irrelevant to the OP. The disputes within Christianity have no relevance to your deductive syllogism. It only opens the door to rabbit trail the conversation. Keep it tight. This comment is not offered as a moderator but for the purpose of keeping your own objective on track.

 

[Josheb]

You think your God can justify unqualified confidence.

Please do not presume to speak for me.
Please do not presume you know what I think.
Please do not presume to know what I think and put words in my mouth with derision.
Please do not employ insinuated ad hominem and appeals to ridicule.

What I have posted about your posts was just demonstrated: There exists serious deficits in reasoning and the arguments often start out fallacious. Arguments built on fallacy are going to end with false conclusions. That's how logic works.

Can you? Seems to me if you view yourself as lowly and limited as the bible says you are, confident unqualified declarations that its not possible to come across a valid and sound syllogism that conflicts with the bible, are uncalled for. They don't sound humble, they sound like "I speak by the Spirit of God..." and yet you'd expressly disclaim divine inspiration.

I have yet to read a valid and logical syllogism posted, much less one that conflicts with the Bible. I am not alone in this observation.

Then you must think the Christian scholars who formed the ICBI in Chicago in 1978 "do not correctly understand the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy". The acronym stands for "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy". Conservative Inerrantists are in more disagreement than I realized.

Nope. I think many things, none of which you know, and you don't ask and you cannot read minds.

I suspect the CSBI has never been read and, if read, never correctly understood. If it had been read, then you'd know 1) the statement is a statement of faith and 2) it acknowledges discrepancies may exist in our current understanding of the Bible. Then, in turn, if that bit of information was realized it would be seen folks like Licona erred in their appraisal and criticism of the CSBI. If the matter diversely was then investigated, then the fact a lot of critics and proponents argue strawmen would be known, acknowledged and not used as evidence of anything but their own lack.

As a consequence of learning those facts then....

• appeals to authority using supposed "authorities" who argued strawmen would not be employed,
• there'd be no expectation anyone who has read the CSBI would think your second-hand strawman arguments are rational,
• there'd be no expectation anyone who has read the CSBI those arguments persuasive,
• there would be an expectation for responses pointing out the flaws with an expectation you would first re-examine your own argument(s) and the predicates upon which they are built.

Article XIV of the CSBI states,

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.​

This is an implicit acknowledgement unresolved discrepancies exist, or at least discrepancies can and will be alleged. Implicitly acknowledging discrepancies exist, the document as a whole asserts an assurance all such discrepancies will eventually be resolved. That one sentence renders 95% of what you've posted about the CSBI and its in-house (Christian) critics moot. The CSBI also makes distinctions between scripture and the Bible that your posts fail to consider, much less acknowledge.

So...... again, we're back to the questions, "Why on earth would @Greg post such foolishness? Does he not know all the facts? Does he not understand the basics of logic or how to critique another's argument? Is he trolling? Are his mistakes 'honest' mistakes, ones committed unwittingly? Has he been fooled by the (poorly reasoned) arguments of others? Is he able to post an original thought, respond to accurate correction, learn all the facts relevant to a given matter? Is he able to self-correct? How much of his argument is due to confirmation bias?" And if the answers to these question fall into the negative side of the matter then.....

Why on earth would an atheist voluntarily join a Christian discussion board and post nonsense? What sort of delusion would make a person think that would ever work to accomplish anything but to expose his lack?

No one here minds being asked questions. It's an apologetics forum. You are invited to ask sincere questions. The expectation is that whatever is broached, whether inquiry or commentary, you will respond reasonably and rationally. You won't troll. The one goal we all pursue here is

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.


And that is going to be very difficult for you because you have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of knowledge, insight, and understanding of scripture, Christianity, Bible exegesis, logic, critical reasoning, and parity (be as critical of the critics as you are of Christians). There is a secular section in this forum where secular matters can be discussed secularly but you have chosen not to post in those boards. Most forums are spare on presuppositionalists. There will be folks here who discuss and debate particular facts with you but there are also those who are going to ask you to examine the foundation of your own content before the relevance and meaning of that content is discussed. It is good and valid for us to ask about the assumptions inherent in what we read. It is not valid to ignore, delay, or otherwise obfuscate those inquiries, yet that is exactly what has happened . It'd taken a lot less time and effort to post the definitions than argue digressively and the former moves the discussion forward. The presuppositional approach seeks to avoid the follwing problem:

Arguments built on flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions.

You've been here almost a week and engaged at least a half-dozen different threads. Not one position has been proven. That is what your entire history here in CCAM will look like if you don't start thinking critically about your own arguments. I want you to hone your reasoning skills. I'm confident if that happens with sincerity then there won't be any trolling, the improved skill set will be observable by all, and you will eventually acknowledge the intellectual integrity of theism in general and Christianity in particular. There's no threat of you becoming a Christian merely through debate because intellectual assent alone can never bring a person to salvation from sin.


Post #10 starts off woefully flawed.

Start over.

Define your terms.

 

[Carbon]

That isn't actually Calvinism. You have slanted the wording of your premises by confusing your interpretation of Calvinism from a purely horizontal perspective when the very core of Calvinism is vertical.

So, if P1 and p2 are true then of course c will be true and, in a sense, they are. But they do not express Calvinism.

The correct Calvinist/Reformed view would be:

P1- Major Premise: The elect will do anything God wills them to do.
P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
C - The elect will repent of their sins.

Right on!

 

[Josheb]

Naw, I modified my syllogisms to satisfy Ariel's demand for more precision. Read her response and my reply.

That is not an explanation or excuse for anything. I'm encouraged by an ability to respond to others but the need to define one's terms is critically important. None of us should assume we each use like terms with identical meaning. An atheist's definition of God is likely to be much different from that of a Reformed, evangelical, fundamentalist Christian. Differences in definition is how fallacies of ambiguity and false equivalence occur. Two posters, even two Christian posters (or two atheists), could trade posts form multiple pages only to later realized they've been talking about two completely different matters using the same words....... because they failed to define the terms at the beginning.

So, define your terms. Do NOT post arguments of assertion. It is ineffective in general but because you made it an issue, you look hypocritical every time an unfounded, unexplained assertion is posted. It's not a theist v atheist thing. Hypocrisy doesn't care about that. Neither do reason or logic. I'm simply holding you to standards you have yourself asserted.

And I understand your pretense of hesitation to move forward, for need of greater definition of terms, an unbeliever could justify delaying repenting on the grounds that, as 2000 years of internal fracturing of Christianity conclusively proves, whatever way the bible defines its terms on salvation and numerous other subjects, needs greater precision before safe conclusions can be drawn. The most potent example being Trinitarians who disagree with each other on Calvinism and Arminianism.

No, you do not understand my non-existent pretense. Do not mistake my expectation you start with you as a sign of hesitancy. The posters here will gladly testify to my ability to be incredibly assertive and exacting. You've mistaken patience, forbearance, and grace for hesitancy.

Correction: A non-believer (technically there is no such thing as an "un-believer"), might "delay" because s/he does not adequately or correctly understand the diversity of thought existing within Christianity, why it exists, and/or what purpose it serves. The existence of conflict does not determine anything.

Perhaps a simple analogy might help, though.

Science "replaces" itself about every 100-150 years. Both the knowledge it considers facts and the methods it employs to attain that knowledge and the understanding thereof. Science is not fixed; it is not static nor monolithic. Science in fact (pun intended) often moves forward solely through disparity/diversity of thought, vigorous debate, intense conflict, and more. If we were to apply the standard you use, we would then be "justified" (as you use the term) believing science is worthy of rejection, no scientists should exist, and everything they believe is wrong.

In other words, the minute you attempted to leverage the lack of consensus your entire existence here became hypocritical. And if you did not know that before entering the forum or acknowledge it after it has now been pointed out then you're either dishonest or foolish. Religion and spirituality are among the most demanding and universal matters known to humanity. We should, therefore, expect disagreement, not think it indicative of something to eschew.







Define your terms so everyone can and will know what you're asking/asserting. Even if we disagree with your definitions, we will then at least know what it is you mean when using those terms.

 

[Greg]

The whole trap depends on forcing me to accept that everything God wills in any sense becomes morally obligatory. Christianity has never taught that.

If by “God wills” you are referring to his preceptive will, then the argument is probably not sound, the problem being Premise 4. You would need to show that God commanded Hitler to murder Jews.

If you were referring to his decretive will, then the argument incoherent, the problem being Premise 3. It is incoherent to speak of a moral obligation to obey God’s decree as such. God’s decree determines what will occur; it is not a precept defining what ought to occur.

Calvin said God's will is a perfect unity, or "one", and the distinction between hidden and revealed will is not true, it only falsely "appears" to be true because human beings are afflicted with the limitation intellectual feebleness:

Their first objection - that if nothing happens without the will of god, [god] must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel human acts which He has openly forbidden in his law - is easily disposed of…while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing…
…when we cannot comprehend how god can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible, (1 Tim. 6:16, ) because shrouded in darkness... [Augustine] had said a little before, that the apostate angels, by their revolt, and all the reprobate, as far as they themselves were concerned, did what god willed not; but, in regard to his omnipotence, it was impossible for them to do so: for, while they act against the will of god, his will is accomplished in them. Hence he exclaims, "Great is the work of god, exquisite in all he wills!

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1999). Institutes Of The Christian Religion (electronic ed.)
(I, xviii, 3). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.​

If Calvin was correct that the divine will is "one and undivided", then I'm forced to conclude that the distinction between decretive and preceptive will, that you allege to be true about god, is not true about god.

The premise to a syllogism must assert actual truth...not merely truth as wrongfully perceived by "feeble intellect...". Otherwise, yes, the syllogism is doomed be either invalid or unsound.

Thus the singular descriptive word "will" in P1 did not constitute the ambiguity or imprecision you thought it did. It was in perfect accord with what you and Calvin think is the actual truth about god's will. A will that is "one and undivided" is truthfully represented with the unqualified expression "will".

That is, when P1 says "The elect should do anything God wills them to do", you are wrong to complain that "will" doesn't specify which particular aspect, decretive or preceptive. Logic and truth are not served if they are based on what Calvin said were false perspectives arising from "feebleness of intellect..."

But anyway, I'll modify the syllogism to please the Calvinist critics, who seem to be perfectly certain that which particular "will" of God is meant here, makes significant difference:

• Premise 1: An elect sinner should do anything God has secretly willed them to do.
• Premise 2: God secretly wills for the elect sinner to sin.
• Conclusion: The elect should commit sin.

So if we forget the prior lesson which taught that the syllogism is doomed when it proceeds upon any premise that is actually false (like the premise that the difference between God's decretive and preceptive wills is not mere appearance, but actual truth), well, you can't dispute P1 because you believe it "true" that God has a secret will respecting an elect person.

You cannot dispute P2 because you are Calvinists. See WCF sec.3.

NOW tell me why the conclusion is false.

 

[atpollard]

Premise 1: An elect sinner should do anything God has secretly willed them to do.

This is false. God WILLED (determined that is WOULD HAPPEN) that evil men would murder Jesus Christ, however, it is not true that evil men SHOULD (were MORALLY OBLIGATED to) murder Jesus. As Joseph stated in Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive.”

 

[Arial]

Calvin said God's will is a perfect unity, or "one", and the distinction between hidden and revealed will is not true, it only falsely "appears" to be true because human beings are afflicted with the limitation intellectual feebleness:

Institutes of the Christian Religion (I.xviii.3)​

“For the will of God is one and simple in him, but it appears manifold to us, because, on account of the weakness of our intellect, we do not grasp how in diverse ways it wills and does not will something to take place.”

Institutes (III.xxiv.17)​

“By his secret counsel he determines what he will do, but by his law he shows what is our duty.”

Here Calvin clearly affirms:

• Secret (hidden) will → decree
• Revealed will → moral command

Institutes (I.xviii.3)​

“They feign that God has two contrary wills… but this is falsely and wickedly imagined.”

This is one of the strongest statements:

• Calvin rejects the idea that God positively wills and does not will the same thing in the same sense
• The problem is not the distinction—it is contradiction

If Calvin was correct that the divine will is "one and undivided", then I'm forced to conclude that the distinction between decretive and preceptive will, that you allege to be true about god, is not true about god.

Did you not understand what you were reading? Is that the point where you stopped reading and then were "forced" to conclude that something false is the truth. If you read the whole thing with comprehension, you would reach the opposite conclusion---if you measure yourself by the same standards of logic that you apply to Christians. Do you know what "simple" means in reference to God in Calvin's statement?

Thus the singular descriptive word "will" in P1 did not constitute the ambiguity or imprecision you thought it did. It was in perfect accord with what you and Calvin think is the actual truth about god's will. A will that is "one and undivided" is truthfully represented with the unqualified expression "will".

Calvin in the very quote you quoted, and Reformed theology do not agree with your misquided interpretation of what Calvin said so your P1 according to what you said (see below) is not actual truth but "truth as wrongfully perceived by------".

The premise to a syllogism must assert actual truth...not merely truth as wrongfully perceived by "feeble intellect...". Otherwise, yes, the syllogism is doomed be either invalid or unsound.

That is, when P1 says "The elect should do anything God wills them to do", you are wrong to complain that "will" doesn't specify which particular aspect, decretive or preceptive. Logic and truth are not served if they are based on what Calvin said were false perspectives arising from "feebleness of intellect..."

P1 isn't based on what Calvin said so you still have the problem of not defining "will".

But anyway, I'll modify the syllogism to please the Calvinist critics, who seem to be perfectly certain that which particular "will" of God is meant here, makes significant difference:

• Premise 1: An elect sinner should do anything God has secretly willed them to do.
• Premise 2: God secretly wills for the elect sinner to sin.
• Conclusion: The elect should commit sin.

Assuming "should" still means moral obligation, then your premise is in tension with your conclusion, because you are deriving a moral obligation to sin---a contradiction in terms. God cannot obligate what he forbids. Your argument is not just unsound but internally incoherent.

P2 trades on a well-jknown but unresoved anbiguity. In Reformed theology (which is what you are opposing) God's "secret will" ---his decree---includes the ordination of all that comes to pass, including sinful acts, but this does not mean that God morally wills sin in the same sense that he commands righteousness. You are collapsing the distinction between God's decretive will and his perceptive will.

Unless you can show that these are the same kind of willing your premise is equivocal and cannot support a sound conclusion. And your attempt to do that failed because the person you quoted to verify, they were the same kind of willing said the opposite of what you claim he said. He (Calvin) distinguished the two wills.