Theo and Logos

Theo and Logos

Characters

Theo – a Theologian

Logos – A Scientific Logician

Narrator – Narrator

Narrator

Knowledge exists in this strange paradoxical stasis, where it is valid and invalid, finite and infinite, sound and unsound.

Our common reasoning is that there are two primary schools of thought that contradict each other radically when used on each other, contradict themselves subtly when analyzed in a certain way, and equally justifiable on their own merits.

Both schools make assumptions based on empirical and or rational evidence, and both seek to use that evidence to answer many of the same questions.

These two stances are the Theological and the Logical.

[Theo and Logos stand on a hill and watch the sunrise]

Logos

Science has shown that the world rotates and that the sun enters and exits our field of vision, creating the sensation of a sunrise

Theo

Perhaps, but I believe that God wills the earth to rotate in that way. You are basing your knowledge on the assumption of continuing causality. If the earth were to suddenly stop rotating, you would not only be wrong, but you would be forced to admit a new truth based on your new found information: the earth does not have to rotate, but it can. This means that your knowledge is completely subjective to circumstance. Similar is the black swan story. If you were to say “All swans are white,” then one day came across an animal that had all the same properties of a swan, but had black feathers, then you would have to rewrite what you originally thought to be an absolute and objective truth.

[Theo and Logos witness as a thunderstorm forms. A man walks up the hill before them when he is suddenly struck by lightning]

Logos

This event is plausible, unfortunate, but logical. It is simply by chance that this man was struck by lightning, although the events leading up to the strike, such as the science of weather, could explain why the events occurred in such a way. Events can occur by chance, but they can also be plausibly explained by circumstance.

Theo

Perhaps, but I believe that God willed for this man to be killed. It is possible that he was an immoral man and did not deserve the life he was given, or he was a righteous man, and his death will hopefully teach a lesson to someone else in the world, such as his family. They may learn the value of life and the value of the sacrifices this man made for them.

Logos

So tell me, this man was struck by lightning. That is unquestionable as he lies charred at our feet. We do not know what kind of a man he was, but we can assume he rests upon one of three degrees of morality: Moral, Immoral, or some type of neutral ground.

Theo

That is correct. Only God knows exactly why it happened and all of the things that it will affect. We, as humans, can theorize many things, such as the direct impact this tragedy may have on his family, but it would be impossible for us to see how this event will affect the world 3,000 years from now. However, God, being an infinite and omniscient being, can know all of these things and more. While our knowledge is unidirectional, (i.e. we only learn what we do from our birth to our death, nothing before or after), God’s Knowledge is all encompassing. He knows everything that has happened before our time, everything that is happening right now, and everything that will ever happen.

Logos

So, if God knows everything that we will ever do, then we as humans have no free will, because God already knows what we’re going to do. If we chose to be devoted to Him, he would know, and if we chose to be rebellious, he would also know.

Theo

That is correct. God has a plan for everyone and knows our every thought and action.

Logos

So, why would God make us if he knows all that’s going to happen?

Theo

Because our God loves human beings, and he finds great joy in our devotion to him.

Logos

But if God loves everyone, then why would there be sinners in the world? Why not just make everyone righteous?

Theo

Because then righteous action has no meaning. If I forced you to buy me a gift, then I wouldn’t feel elated, because you did not perform that act out of any personal desire to see me happy, you did it because I forced you to. Now, if you chose to buy me a gift, then I would feel elated because I know that you could have just as easily chosen to not give me a gift. However, in this current scenario, you did, and it is that positive influx that generates such a wonderful feeling.

Logos

Yes, but that feeling is created by God, correct?

Theo

Yes it is, God created happiness and service.

Logos

God also created the world that those emotions exist in, correct?

Theo

That is true, God made the entire universe.

Logos

Now, could God just as easily made a world where he not buying you a gift brought you pleasure? Couldn’t he just as easily make a world where negative actions produced positive feelings?

Theo

Perhaps, but that universe would be logically contradicting because the world would inevitably destroy itself.

Logos

But isn’t logic created by God? Couldn’t God just as easily rewrite the laws of logic and science? God, being all powerful, could create a world where the slash of a sword miraculously heals a person, and it would make just as much sense in that universe as the same sword slashing off a person’s arm would in our present universe. The logical foundations of our world are entirely dependent on the way that God decided to make it. Is that not true?

Theo

That would all be true.

Logos

So what is the value of positive acts against negative acts?

Theo

Our current world, positive actions yield positive results, and our God receives positive feelings from our positive actions, which are given meaning by the dichotomy of positive and negative acts. Anything else would be logically impossible in our current dimension.

Logos

So why DID God create the world to be the way it is? Wouldn’t our new paradoxical world with the sword be just as valid since both worlds are just as subjective to the will of God? Or is there some other entity above God that assigned Him to our specific world? Are there other dimensions where our paradoxical world does exist and there is another God, let us call him God2, who finds pleasure in people destroying each other?

Theo

It is entirely plausible for there to be other dimensions that exist paradoxical to our own. However, we currently live in our own spatiotemporal world. Under the circumstances, we must believe in the way that world currently works, and abide by the way it works. It functions in the way that God wills it, and we exist within his Will, despite it being entirely subjective to His perspective.

Logos

But how can we prove or disprove the existence of God or God2 and their respective dimensions?

Theo

We can prove and give validity to whatever we want to give validity to. I could write on a piece of paper ‘God2 exists’ and make the claim ‘God2 exists because the paper says so. The paper says so, therefore, God2 exists.’ You could then write down on a new piece of paper ‘God2 does not exist’ and make the same claim. Your claim would have just as much validity because of the foundation you placed it on. Therefore, if you were to say ‘Divinity can only be proven through divine knowledge’ then it could be true that we will never ‘prove’ whether God or God2 exist or not because how are we to say what divine knowledge is? If God2 entered this world and spoke to a me, I could make the claim ‘God2 exists because I saw him and heard him,’ but that would simply be me asserting my claims based on the empirical sensation of interacting with this being and the rational reasoning that I can only interact with something if it exists. However, empirical evidence and rational reasoning are not definitive sources of knowledge if you do not give validity to them. If you do give validity to them, then they are valid, but that is entirely subjective to what you believe in. what you believe in is a choice you personally make.

Logos

So, I can believe in Logic and science and it would be just as valid as you believing in God due to us both putting our respective faith in what we believe to be truth.

Theo

That is correct. We are both equally correct, albeit paradoxical.

The Fundamentals of Marriage

Thomas Agrusti

Prof. Barbara Andrew

Philosophy of Sex & Love

March 29, 2013

The Fundamentals of Marriage

            Allow me to begin with a cliché: “I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” These words have echoed through the halls of many churches, legal halls, and casino chapels, but many of us have forgotten the true meaning that these words hold. So many people have hurtled toward marriage like this holy end goal, while others gripe about the horrors that marriage create. I’d like to use this essay in order to lay the ground rules of what marriage is, what it takes to create a fulfilling marriage, and what marriage does not have to include.

            Throughout the course of this essay, I will make reference to several authors, citing words spoken in their articles, as provided in the book Philosophy of Sex & Love: A Reader by Robert Trevas, Arthur Zucker, and Donald Borchert. These authors include Immanuel Kant, and his “Lecture on Ethics” and “Philosophy of Law” (p. 125-129); Richard Taylor and the excerpt from his book Having Love Affairs (p.138-139); Lawrence Casler and his “Permissive Matrimony: Proposals for the Future”; and finally, Richard Wasserstrom and his article “Is Adultery Immoral”.

            The four fundamentals that we will be focusing on are as follows: first, we will be discussing love and fidelity in all of its forms; next, we will be looking at the reciprocal nature that marriage must have in helping and humanizing all those involved; finally we will look at communication & compromise (C&C), which are two elements necessary to sustain marriage. Afterwards, we will explore common misconceptions about marriage.

            Quintessential to marriage is love, which is we shall define as “an affection, trust, and service between two or more persons in a physical, mental, and possibly spiritual manner.” The physical aspect would be the desires of each person(s) in regards to sex and physical health. The mental aspect would incorporate any psychological functions, such as emotional and social health. Dependent on the persons involved, the group may want to incorporate a spiritual aspect, which would involve adherence to religious or spiritual properties they may practice. These aspects of love change in their absolute meaning based on the agreements made between those involved. True fidelity is defining these aspects between all those involved, and adhering to them. Once all persons are comfortable with their definitions and parameters, all of those involved are able to coexist within the relationship and thrive as they seek best. This comes into play as well when we talk about C&C.

            Kant sets up the principle that all humans should treat humans as human, and any degradation of a person’s humanity is morally wrong. In the case of sex and love, a person acts in an immoral way when they objectify another person as a means to an end, the end being sexual pleasure. Sex, as Kant proclaims, is only justified when the persons involved in the act of sex love each other, further confirming and committing to that love through marriage. In this way, the persons involved treat each other as humans, seeking to care for the other outside of sex, and using the act of sex in order to gratify the other person(s), which in turns gratifies the self. This mutual exchange of sexual service, and furthermore loving service, creates a reciprocal relationship where all those involved serve and treat each other in a moral, human manner.

            Once these fundamentals are in place, a marriage can be established. After a marriage is set up, all those involved need to use proper communication and compromise. Communication encompasses the expressing of one’s thoughts and desires to the group in an unbiased manner. This allows all those involved to have a clear scope of that each person is looking for in the relationship. If there is a conflict at any point in time, be it caused by miscommunication, unfortunate circumstances, or otherwise, then problem solving, or compromise, is necessary. Through compromise, all those involved in the relationship can choose what they are comfortable in changing or sacrificing in order to promote harmony within the marriage. Most marriages fail because of an inability or a failure to communicate and/or compromise. By practicing harmonious communication and compromise, a marriage can grow, thrive, and succeed.

            Now that we have the fundamentals of what a marriage is, we shall discuss many of the misconceptions of marriage. One of the first misconceptions is that marriage is exclusive, meant only to be between two people. This does not have to be true, but it can be preferred. Intrinsically, people have different ideas and practices that they may or may not be comfortable with. For example, a heterosexual man can feel uncomfortable being physically intimate with another man. This is not because there is anything immoral about practicing homosexuality, but because this is something that the first man is not personally comfortable with. With this in mind, there are persons who enjoy a sexually active lifestyle, enjoying the company of multiple partners. Kant’s principle requires love in order to justify sexual behavior, but it is the love that is quintessential justify sexual behavior, and marriage affirms that love through commitment. However, it is possible for a person to love more than one person. Wasserstrom gives the example of a parent who has four children. The parent loves each of his or her children equally, and has no preference of one over the other, and never withdraws love from one to attend to another (p. 174). In this same way, Man A, Man B, and Woman A, who are all bisexual, can love one another and maintain a reciprocal relationship. As long as all of them practiced the fundamentals of marriage, they would have a moral relationship.

            Casler furthers this idea in his article on permissive marriage. Permissive marriage is a compromised form of marriage, allowing all persons involved in the relationship to summarize what they want from the marriage and pursue that in a harmonious, legal, and moral way. Permissive marriage would allow persons involved in a marriage to maintain a sexually active lifestyle with persons other than they spouse, would allow group marriages, and any combination of marriage and living that the persons involved could desire. This also breaks one of the common misconceptions that sex and love in marriage must be exclusive those involved in the marriage. Through proper communication, those involved in the marriage can agree on what types of sexual practices everyone is comfortable. These practices may seem unconventional, but they are not intrinsically immoral. It is when deception and promise breaking is involved that the act becomes immoral. This is the definition of true infidelity: the breaking of predetermined promises.

            This also flows into one of the final misconceptions about marriage: Infidelity and adultery are strictly sexual acts. In Taylor’s book, he describes a situation where there is an emotional expression of infidelity. In this example, a husband is emotionally cold to his wife, and his wife seeks refuge in another man. Marriage is meant to be reciprocal in every aspect, and when a person does not provide for and support their spouse(s), they are breaking the initial promise(s) that their marriage represents. In this way, infidelity can be expressed physically, mentally, and even spiritually. It is up to those involved in the relationship to provide and care for one another in all of these aspects. If they cannot, then they need to communicate that inability and compromise. For example, let’s say a husband and wife are married and the wife’s father passes away. The husband, who has never lost a loved one, does not know how to help his wife through the grievous time. The wife’s best friend, however, has also lost her father. The husband and wife can communicate and compromise to see the wife consoled by her best friend in order to be helped through this harsh time in a way that the husband could not. This does not take away from the husband’s role or person, but instead provides a way for the marriage to overcome this obstacle and encourage that harmonious state that marriage is meant to have.

            Marriage is not a ball and chain. It is not the end of fun, or sex, or adventure. It is exactly the opposite of all of those things. Marriage creates a loving relationship between people who seek to serve one another. Marriage creates a reciprocal relationship where those involved can experiment and try things that they may otherwise never have the security to try. A great marriage can survive the most brutal obstacles. With this in mind, return to our original cliché, and notice the true meaning of these famous words. 

A Theory of Finite Knowledge

Recently I have been pondering a theory of knowledge and was wondering what philosopher(s), if any, had a similar theory.

My theory states that all knowledge is finite due to the necessity of experience to generate knowledge and the finite number of particulars and universals in the phenomenal world.

This theory denies the existence of a noumena, a “God’s-eye view”, and simply focuses on the phenomenal world of sensory experience.

The Phenomenological world only has a finite number of particulars and universals (P&U), and this number can be simplified by introduced categories. Once an ontology is a created, that ontology would end at some point as the world at one point in time only has a finite number of P&U, a finite number of occurrences, and a finite number of “subjective perceptions.” (Ergo, if any object can be perceived differently by different people/animals/modes of conscious thought otherwise, then there are only a finite number of beings, and therefore a finite number of perceptions.)

In this manner, the phenomenal world is objective in its own nature and is perceived in different ways by each individual conscious. However, this number of perceptions, while exponential, is still finite.

The Conceptual world is based off of the experiences from the phenomenal world. The mind has the ability to transform this information from the experiences. So, if this world has P, then the person experiences P and registers it in the mind. The mind can then transform P in different ways, such as imagining –P, 2P, PxP, and every logical transformation past that. However, there are only a finite number of transformations a person can do before the next transformation becomes reflective of a previous one.

In the same way, a world where this is only a finite number of P&U can only have a finite number of combinations, albeit exponential. For example, where A, B, and C exist, they can only be combined in so many different ways, such as ABC, ACB, CAB, and so on in as many permutations as logically possible.

Once this is done with every subjective perception of every P&U, then you would have a complete ontology of all possible knowledge.

This also explains fantastical conceptions, as they are simply one of the novel combinations of preexisting things in the world. For example, the unicorn, a fantastical creature that few, if any, people have directly experienced, is simply a combination of a white horse and a horn, two things that are common in the phenomenal world. This can be further transformed with universals such as elegance, beauty, and magical properties, but these are also permutations of universals that exist in the real world. Elegance and beauty are universals found in phenomenal objects, and magic is simply a permutation of the laws of natural science (so if immortality is magical, the immortality is simply the negation of mortality, which is a phenomenal experience.)

All in all, every permutation of phenomenal experience can logically be mapped out to yield a finite number, creating a complete ontology of knowledge. This ontology would be finite, and thus, knowledge is finite.

If you could recommend a philosopher or philosophers that agree with this, or even ones that proves this theory to be bunk, I would greatly appreciate it.

Zenith: What it means to each person

Thomas Agrusti

Prof. Barbra Andrew

Philosophy of Sex & Love

February 12, 2013

Zenith: What it means to each person

            One of the great joys that I have as a philosopher is the privilege of having poetic license with all that there supposedly is. I have the ability to say and believe whatever I want, as long as I present competent ways of justifying it.

            Due to this blessing, I am not obligated to take a straightforward approach to anything, but instead make the experience enjoyable for all.  Mind you, as I am only one mind, it would be rather difficult for me to make a claim that what I say and do is pleasing to all who experience it. The same goes for the experiences regarding sex and love (SEGWAY!)

            Perceptions of the meaning behind sex and love vary vastly between people. This is clearly evident when we look at Bertocci’s 1950’ Neo-Catholic view of the subject and compare is to Vannoy’s 1980’s contradictory view. The great part about this assignment is that I’m being asked to proceed along two arguments based on two mediums when asked the question “Who do I agree with the most”: First, I’m being asked which side I personally side with; second, I am being asked which one I find valid. Thus, I am being asked for a personal perspective as well as a logical one. To make it better, I can tear both of these men a new one as there are so many wonderful flaws with their arguments. Afterwards, I will speak on my personal perceptions of sex and love and how they integrate with the two speakers we present today.

            First up to bat is our Pole Bearer, Peter A. Bertocci. Here is a man who believes that love is a spiritual progression between two people who go from first meeting, to tender emotions, and move on into holy matrimony. It is in this secure commitment that the two can come together in order to unite as one, bear offspring, and better their country. Overtime, the two will face difficulties and tragedies, but will always have each other to lean on when times get tough. They will also have a person who will make the good times even better. It is this unity that brings two people to realize the greatest pleasure one can feel, deeper than just a physical pleasure, and even deeper than an awe at the other person’s mind and personality. The two realize a great love for each other, for their community, and people as a whole.

            Where do I start? It is obvious that Bertocci’s argument bleeds Judeo-Christian beliefs along with the “darling” 1950’s viewpoint. As such, this viewpoint is already biased due to its date and its belief system; it only works if the person shares the same Christian beliefs. Bertocci also claims that marriage is an affirmative commitment that two people are going to continue progressing as people and lovers, but this biconditional idea is invalid. If you asked two people on their wedding day if they are in love, they would undoubtedly say “Yes” (if they didn’t, the marriage probably wouldn’t last very long). However, let’s say down the road there is a disagreement, miscommunication, deviancy, and distrust. Would those two still be able to affirm their love for one another as confidently as before? If they were to divorce, would they still be in love then? Would them not being in love anymore invalidate the claim that they made on their wedding day? The progression doesn’t work if it isn’t continuous. If the two fall out of love, the progression idea breaks. Furthermore, let us suppose a new argument. Let us imagine that two people love each other, are committed to each other, and decide not to marry. They may choose this for any reason, from not believing in the social convention or religious convention of marriage, or it might be a financial difficulty. For whatever reason, love can still exist and permeate without the construct of marriage. As such, the progression is once again invalidated. Another scenario would be in a homosexual relationship, where two partners are committed to one another, may not be able to wed because of legal concerns, but show the same commitment as they would in marriage.

            Now, let us give Old’ Bertocci a crutch and say what is right about his argument. The concept of love between two individuals is beautiful. Nearly every philosopher would agree that companionship is quintessential to living. Socrates believed we can learn from one another, Aristotle believed we could lean on one another, and even Nietzsche believes the combination of two equals is more powerful than either alone. It is through unity that we grow stronger and advance as a species, and it is in love that we find an incredible awe for all of humanity, for our special someone, and for ourselves. Love is marvelous and difficult to define, but mature love is undeniably wonderful.

            Now it’s time for Mr. Russell Vannoy. Vannoy believes that sex has the potential to be sex for sex’s sake, and that any associative belief system misleads us from the true pleasure sex can bring. If two or more people are mature and appreciate each other without being in love, they can have an incredible sexual experience. By adding love into the mix, people grow different anxieties about the true meaning of what they are doing, their role in the activity, and in pleasing the other person rather than themselves. Sexual lust is separate from love, which causes many misunderstandings in how to view a sexual partner. True pleasure is found when two mature individuals can conjoin in an adult way of play.

            (Cracks knuckles) First off, Vannoy’s claim sexual lust and love are separate is invalid. To explain this, imagine if you were looking at a celebrity or a model. It is possible to find this person very attractive, and even sexually appealing. However, this may not be a person you are fond of personally. The person may be egotistical, stingy, and, in the end, it is undeniable that this person, if you never met them before, doesn’t even know anything about you. Now, picture your significant other. Here is a person who knows you better than you know yourself, who was there when you couldn’t get out of bed, who ran through the rain for you, who painted your bedroom and mowed your lawn. Here’s a person who you ate dinner with, watched movies with, played games with. Now imagine having sex with that person. That experience is amazing because you are uniting with a person you feel is wonderful in so many ways. You are not making love to their body, you do not love them for their body, you love THEM, and you are making love to THEM. This experience is far more passionate than simple sexual lust like one would feel for a porn star; this is euphoria of two people joining as one, playing together, and pleasing one another because of how much they are in love. That is why the “thrusting of a penis into a vagina” is a beautiful thing, because it is unifying and pleasurable. Furthermore, it is when you have a person who you can communicate with that you can experiment with sexually. True, you may be able to communicate with a person you have just met and appreciate to discover what they are and are not comfortable with, but this level of confidence seems unlikely. Finally, Vannoy makes a claim that there is an anxiety in a loving sexual relationship that is not present in recreational sex. However, this anxiety is founded in insecurity, and Vannoy stated before that optimal sex is only possible if the two are mature and secure individuals. As such, this anxiety is not caused by being in or out of love; it is caused by being insecure.

            Once more, let’s see what the old dog got right. It is true that marriage is not necessary for a sexual relationship, but maturity is. One thing both authors seem to grasp is that communication and proper problem solving is key to any relationship, be it marital, loving, or simply sexual. All of the people involved in the exchange must know and be clear on exactly what is going on, what is expected, and what that means, if it means anything at all. When there is miscommunication, problems arise. I can honestly say that communication and problem solving are my mantra when it comes to relationships, because this is where most problems arise.

            So, what do I believe? As a Psychology major, I feel it’s only appropriate to do what the science has done time and time again: Claim that there are similarities, truths and problems with both arguments, so the final verdict is a mix of both. (Seriously, look at the “Nature vs. Nurture debate, the Top-down and Bottom-up processing debate, the Freud/Piaget/Erickson Developmental debate and you’ll find psychology sides with synthesis time and time again). I feel that love is an ultimate positive, and sex is the unification of two people who find each other incredibly awesome. Sex can be had in or out of marriage so long as both people understand what is going on and what it means to them. Sex can be something that you share with just that one special someone, or it can be something you have with anyone you meet. Sex means to you whatever you want it to, and the experience is enhanced based on what you believe. I believe marriage is a way of committing to another individual, but does not have to be instated unto everyone because everyone has their own set of beliefs that can be justified for one reason or another. That is the beautiful thing about humanity, and why philosophers have come to love them. Overtime we think of new ideas, spawn new societies, and find more and more amazing ways to make humanity simply and incredibly awesome.

Phenomenology

To all my Metaphysical Friends: 
(For those who don't know, "Universal" = quality/adjective
As I delve into my reading alongside my Logic Exercises, I found myself writing this passage:

“The Problem with the book’s example of, “F: Fred is short” I that its universal is referential. Height is based on the measurement of one object compared to another. As such, it is not objective nor is it innate. If nothing in the world existed except for a singular object, say Fred, then he would be neither short not tall, for there is nothing to compare him to, but he would also be both short and tall, for there is nothing to otherwise disprove either of these claims, creating a paradox where one object exemplifies/represents two contradicting universals.”

As I read, I also began wondering if any universal can be truly innate.

For example, the concept of beauty is a funny one. For an object to exemplify beauty it must be experienced as beautiful by another person. Now, defining this exemplification is difficult for there are few valid ways to ultimately say what is evident of a person experiencing an object as beautiful. I believe we could make claims that they find themselves in awe of the object, or they are able to appreciate it for its qualities, or even that there is some biological process that occurs when the person experiences something beautiful that does not happen for any other scenario but that. These could very well be proper parameters to use in order to include beauty in an ontology of the world. However, this bears in mind the idea that objects are defined by those that experience them, and how the objects, in turn, experience the people, cyclically. This Phenomenological approach would then reveal that objects have no innate properties, for if there was no one to experience the object, then the object would have no one to assign it qualities. Without any qualities, the object ceases to be describable, definable, and meaningful. As such, it becomes meaningless. Without any meaning or definition, the object would cease to exist as it would have no qualities, and existence would be among those qualities, both in a material sense and a conceptual sense. This is due to there being no entity to actualize this object in either physical form or mental conception. The object also ceases to have relevancy to the ontology since, with no qualities and meaning it bears no use to the discussion and becomes meaningless, thus expunging it from discussion. 

Now, if this state of mind was continued, one could simply eliminate all humanity and animals (i.e. all conscious beings) and the world would cease to exist. With no one to actualize the world, the world ceases to exist. Now, if an object has innate universals, then it would exemplify a universal without the need for a conscious being to experience it. However, this is paradoxical, for if a quality needs an conscious mind to experience and actualize the object, then the object that exemplifies an innate universal would thereby have to experience itself. The object, being self-aware, would actualize itself, experience itself, then experience this actualization, and continue in an infinite regress of self-awareness, indefinitely realizing itself. 

Now, with this in mind, it can be reasoned that no inanimate object has a conscious mind. Therefore, only an animate object, having a conscious mind, has the ability to experience and actualize an object and the qualities associated with it. Now, if an innate universal must have the ability to actualize itself with itself, then there are only a few possibilities for naming the only things with innate qualities.

The first one, following this run of thought, would be the conscious mind. The conscious mind, on its own merits, has the ability to experience itself and actualize itself, giving itself qualities and proving its existence. 

A second proposition would be the human, which has a conscious mind. This human has the ability to experience itself using its mind and actualize itself. Thus, the human is able to exist on its own. 

A third proposition would be God, for God, like the human, has a mind to experience himself, and so on.

As such, the three innate universals would be:
1) Mindfulness
2) Humanness
3) Godliness

If this quality is lost, then the object itself ceases to exist for it ceases to have the ability to define itself. However, so long as the object exist, it has the ability to actualize its own existence. 

Now, this argument presents the idea that experience precedes existence. It is disproved by the argument that existence precedes experience, whereby the object exists and the entity experiences that object. Along this thought, the object exemplifies all of its own qualities on its own, independent of the interpretive mind. With this state of mind, it is the object that gives the entity something to experience. As such, Existence precedes Experience.

The Logical Fallacies of Christianity

(Note: This is a reinterpretation of "The Contradictions of Christianity" using Logical statements based off of the transitive property to prove the methodology of Christianity as invalid)

The Logical Fallacies of Christianity

Throughout my Christian journey, I believe I have found many contradictions in the message of Christianity. I will be using propositions in order to logically elaborate on my argument presented in “The Contradictions of Christianity”.

Firstly, we must set up our parameters:

For the sake of argument, we will reason that God exists.

Christianity is a religion whereby a person achieves one or more of 5 goals:

1)      Promise of life after death

2)      Redemption for past wrong doings

3)      Explanation for unanswered questions

4)      Guidance in how to approach life

5)      Promise for peace in this life (i.e. the conscious life lived in the material world)

Though more reason can exists, these are the ones will be focusing on.

However, each goal is not met by Christianity.

A person can seek Christianity in order to find peace in this life.

However, the Bible points out that “being a Christian is not a pleasant life. There will be suffering, and person will be required to bear their cross every day.”

As such, if suffering is promised, then a person does not have peace, nor are they promised peace.

Reason 5 is invalid.

Christianity can be viewed philosophically, and used in order to approach life in an ethically righteous manner.

However, if righteousness is based on the motivation, then supposedly righteous acts would be evil if the motivation is evil.

Therefore, if Christianity can be proven to have evil motivations, then Christianity would not be an ethically righteous philosophy.

Reason 4 is invalid if this can be proven.

A person can look to Christianity in order to find answers for questions such as creation.

However, other philosophers, such as Hume, explain how this is invalid.

Therefore, if Christianity’s answers to these questions are wrong, then a person cannot look to Christianity for these answers.

Reason 3 is invalid.

If a person has committed an action that they feel guilty for and seek redemption, they may look towards Christianity to find forgiveness.

However, if they find forgiveness for themselves, and in the person(s) affected by the act, then they are already forgiven in the physical world, and any other forgiveness would be presented between God and Human.

If Gods was an artificial construct of the mind, then the forgiveness would also be an artificial construct.

Therefore, if forgiveness is simply an artificial manifestation of the mind, then there is no forgiveness, and this reason is invalid.

Based on this, Reason 2 is invalid.

If God exists, then this wrongdoing would be sin. This concept of the weight of sin will be discussed later.

If a person follows Christianity, then they would want to go to heaven after they die.

However, the methodology of what qualifies a person to get into heaven is unclear.

Therefore, if a person does not understand how to get into heaven, then they cannot get into heaven.

Reason 1 is invalid.

Reason 1 will be our next topic of discussion.

Only a Christian can go to heaven.

A person who isn’t a Christian cannot go to heaven.

However, what qualifies a person as a Christian?

A Christian can be thought of as a person who fulfills three criteria:

1)      A person who believes in God

2)      A person who believes in Jesus Christ

3)      A person who believes the Bible

Belief is found by following two criteria:

1)      The understanding of the principle

2)      The trust in the principle

If a person does not understand the principle, then they cannot know what they are trusting. If they do not trust the object, then they do not have faith in it, and they don’t believe in it.

As such if a person does not understand and trust God, Jesus Christ, and/or the Bible, then they would not be a Christian.

Now, if a person decides that Christianity is based on unfounded faith, then the only criterion for a Christian would be the trust of God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible.

However, this trust can only remain if propositions made between the two, person and principle, remained true.

Therefore, if the propositions were proven to be false, then there would be no trust, and the person would not be a Christian.

If there is a methodology to get into heaven, then Christianity would present this method and make the propositions that would lead a person into heaven.

However, if all of the propositions were proven to be contradictory and false, then there would be no way for a person to get into heaven.

Therefore, Christianity would be invalid, since the religion does not accomplish what it sets out to do.

This is what I am aiming to prove.

Now, the Bible also states “You must be fully committed to one master. If you have two masters, you will love one and hate the other.”

However, this would mean that a person must be fully, ultimately, and unquestionably committed to God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible in order to be considered a Christian.

Therefore, a person cannot make the claim at varying degrees of grey, or with different interpretations; they must be 100% Christian.

Christianity states that Jesus was sacrificed for the complete forgiveness of all sins, and people who were forgiven of sins could go to heaven.

However, before Jesus Christ was sacrificed, there was no forgiveness of sin.

Therefore, it was Jesus’s sacrifice that allows a person to go to heaven, and to be forgiven of sin.

Now, for the weight of sin, I will be using numerical value to state the weight of sin. This is simply to make logical sense of weight and to represent statement.

Now, if sin is wrong, then we shall believe it is a negative effect and will be regarded as -1.

However, if Jesus’s death has forgiven all sins, then it would mathematically be +Infinity.

Therefore, sin is meaningless, since the actual cost of sin is outweighed by Jesus’s sacrifice.

Now if sin is meaningless, then a person could sin as much as they want.

However, Christianity teachers a person to flee from sin.

Therefore, Christianity must claim that sin has a consequence in order to teach a person that it is wrong.

Now, if sin has a consequence, then it would have a cost.

However, if committing an act of sin keeps a person from getting into heaven, then they are not forgiven of their sin.

Therefore, if a person’s sin keeps them from entering heaven, then Jesus’s sacrifice was meaningless.

Now, if righteous acts are considered +1, then we, as humans, can counter-weigh their own sins.

However, this would allow people to enter heaven based off of their own actions.

Therefore, if a person can enter heaven on their own actions, then Jesus’s sacrifice is meaningless.

Now, if a person could get into heaven based on their own acts, then they can enter heaven without Jesus’s sacrifice.

However, no person was able to enter heaven before Jesus’s sacrifice because there was no forgiveness of sin.

Therefore, a person’s righteous acts do not atone for their sins, and a person’s own actions cannot bring them into heaven.

So far, we can find one contradiction.

If Jesus’s sacrifice forgives us of sin, then our sin would be canceled out.

However, Sin would have to have a meaningful cost to be considered wrong.

Therefore, Christianity states that Sin has a cost and consequence, but the sacrifice states that it doesn’t.

As such, we must discover what the consequence of sin is and how it would interfere with a person entering heaven.

Now, if a person needs to believe in God/Jesus/the Bible in order to enter heaven, then they must trust them.

However, if they stopped trusting them, then they would not go into heaven

Therefore, a person must remain in trust in order to enter heaven.

Now, if sin causes a person to distrust God, then it would have a consequence.

However, if a person had a resolute mind, then they could sin and still trust in God.

Therefore, Sin has to have some consequence aside from causing a person to distrust God

Now, if a person does not enter heaven because of their sin, then their sin was not forgiven.

However, if a person’s sin was not forgiven, then there would be a step in between sinning and being forgiven.

Therefore, a person must commit some sort of action in conjunction with the sacrifice in order to be forgiven.

This action could be repentance. Repentance is defined as following one or more of the following three criteria:

1)      To cease sinning

2)      To create barriers between them and sinning again

3)      To commit to doing the opposite of the sin

Now, the first criterion is the most essential, since a person cannot repent of sinning if they are still committing the sin.

Now, if a person repents and is forgiven, then it was the repentance that granted them the forgiveness through Jesus’s Sacrifice.

However, repentance cannot be judged fully until death, or else a person can return to the sin between starting their repentance and their death.

Therefore, a person must continue repentance throughout their entire life.

Now, if a person must be free of sin, then they must be free of all sins, continually repenting of all sins.

However, this would mean that a person would have to live a sinless life, which is shown to be near impossible.

Therefore, if Christianity asks us to be sinless in order to obtain forgiveness, then only the people who can meet a near impossible can enter heaven.

Now one strange thing I feel is worth mentioning is the idea of timing. It can be agreed that few people can know when they are guaranteed to die, as death is usually unexpected.

Now it can be reasoned that sins are forgiven from the point of repentance to death.

Therefore, a person who repented at the age of 18 could live to be 100, then die, and would be expected to remain sinless for the full 82 years.

 However, a person who repented seconds before death would be equally forgiven.

Therefore, a person cannot be sure of how long they will refrain from sin.

Now, if a person was to repent at 18, return to sin at 99, then die at 100, then the 81 years of repentance would be meaningless since they did not exhibit true repentance.

However, this would mean that repentance must be continual.

Therefore, a person must always return to repentance whenever they return to sin in order to be forgiven.

Now, if a person switches back and forth between sinning and repenting, then they would simply have to end on repentance in order to enter heaven.

However, this would still discredit the sin and the repentance you did before the final act of repentance.

Therefore, it does not matter how long you repented, simply that you ended in repentance.

Now, if a person simply needs to end in repentance to enter heaven, then the rest of their life doesn’t matter.

However, this would discredit living a full life in Christ.

Therefore, Sin must have a consequence other than preventing us from entering heaven.

Now, a passage in the Bible says “I know I can do all things, but not all things are good for me,” which would state that sin is a punishment itself, that the sin will hurt you in some way.

However, what if a person morphs a sin to be ethically right, such as the Heinz dilemma where you steal to save a life, or the Trolley car dilemma where you kill one man to save the lives of several, etc.

Therefore, not all sins are committed with evil intentions.

Therefore, sins are not all ultimately evil.

Now, if sins are not ultimately evil, then they don’t have to be a consequence unto themselves.

However, this would contradict sin hurting a person other than keeping them from heaven.

Therefore, there is no consequence to sin if it doesn’t keep you from entering heaven, does not sway your trust in God, and does not hurt us in this life.

Now, it must be understood that sin is only morally righteous if the motivation/intention and end result was ultimately righteous.

However, if a sin is done for morally evil reasons and yielded an evil result, then the act was a punishment unto itself since it has the potential to hurt the perpetrator or the victim.

Now, for the sake of being thorough, there is also the possibility that sin is not forgivable, and anyone who has ever sinned cannot enter heaven.

However, this would contradict the entire premise of Christianity.

Therefore, sin must be forgivable in order for Christianity to be valid.

Now, the Bible does state that all sins are forgivable, except for sins against the Spirit, I.E. blaspheming the name of God, which is unforgivable.

However, this would mean that there is sin that can keep a person from heaven.

Therefore, there exists a sin that can keep a person from heaven, while other sins do not, meaning that not all sins are of equal value.

Mathematically speaking, this would mean that blaspheming the spirit would be –infinity-1, as this is unforgivable past Jesus’s Sacrifice.

So far, there are a collection of contradictions that need to be refreshed.

First, if Sin keeps a person from entering heaven, then forgiveness atones for those sins, allowing the person into heaven.

However, how a person obtains forgiveness is unclear.

Therefore, if a person does not obtain forgiveness, they cannot enter heaven.

Second, if sins keep a person from entering heaven, the ultimate place of righteousness, then sin must be evil.

However, we have shown that certain actions can be marked as sin by title, i.e. the act of murder, but can be proven to be ethically right for having morally righteous intentions and results.

Therefore, not all sins can be considered evil.

Third, sin can be forgiven to allow a person into heaven.

However, blasphemy cannot be forgiven.

Therefore, blasphemy can keep a person from entering heaven.

Fourth, the bible states that no sin is too great or done too much to be forgiven.

However, we have shown that not all sins are equal, since a person can commit a sin while being morally righteous or evil.

Therefore, not all sins are equal in value, and must have some type of weight to them.

Fifth, if a person wants to enter heaven and receive forgiveness, they must repent of their sin.

However, a person can authentically repent of their sin when they are seconds from death.

Therefore, a person does not have to spend their entire life devoted to God, only the last moment of life.

Now I would like to flow into a new topic.

For this topic we must also set up a few more axioms.

During the BC years, Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesized that a time would come when a savior would be born. This savior would live, teach the message of God, be betrayed, suffer, and finally be crucified for the complete forgiveness of all sin.

Now, at a later point in time Jesus was born. He lived, became a rabbi, appointed his disciples, and taught the message that is recorded in the New Testament.

Later in Jesus’s life, he is betrayed by Judas, condemned to be flogged and crucified, and dies. He then rises from the dead on the third day. This sequence of events leads to the forgiveness of all sins, for Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, defeated death, and rose up from the dead. This act of condemnation, crucifixion, and resurrection allowed people to enter heaven.

Now, if the end result of this sequence is the forgiveness of all sins, then the sequence would ultimately be a sequence of acts that are righteous.

However, one of the acts is the betrayal of Judas.

Therefore, in order to obtain the ultimate good, Judas’s sinful action had to occur.

Now, if this is true, then it must be accepted further that sin can ultimately have righteous results despite having evil intentions.

However, we must also question whether it is the intention behind the action or the end result that warrants whether or not a person deserves to be punished for their action.

Therefore, we must ponder whether Judas should have been punished or acquitted for betraying Jesus.

Now, the Bible states “It was at that time that the devil entered Judas, and he decided to betray Jesus.” This could be interpreted in two ways:

A)     Judas made a sinful decision, allowing sin in to his heart.

B)      Satan literally possessed Judas and overshadowed his actions.

However, if B is true, then Judas would not be accountable for his actions, since it was Satan acting through his body that caused Jesus’s death.

Therefore, Judas would be innocent.

Now, if the former is true, then Judas would have betrayed Jesus out of conscious evil intention.

However, it is shown later that Judas regrets this decision. If this regret is repentance, then he should have received forgiveness

Therefore, Judas should have been forgiven of his sin, unless this is considered blasphemy.

Now, if all these statements are found to be true, then we would be left with unanswered questions:

1)      What is the true cost of sin?

2)      What weight does it carry in preventing us from entering heaven?

Now, if every statement was found to be true, and the questions left unanswered, then the contradictions would still stand.

However, this would mean that there is no clear method for a person to get into heaven

Therefore, Christianity is Invalid.