@Delirium does not have much of an idea. No comprehension of how an argument is constructed, nor of logic. Not worth the time.
1 Like
Inconsistency is a problem in classical logic, not so in paraconsistent logic or dialetheism. This means theological inconsistencies, like the one mentioned by @Sam26 and @Banno are nonissues, if we use one of the aforementioned logics.
1 Like
Paraconsistent logic doesn’t show that inconsistencies are nonissues. It shows that inconsistency needn’t produce explosion, i.e., it needn’t allow every claim whatever to follow.
Suppose, for e.g. we have an inconsistent set of claims about John:
- John is in Paris.
- John is not in Paris.
- If John is in Paris, then John is in France.
In classical logic, accepting both “John is in Paris” and “John is not in Paris” creates a contradiction, and from a contradiction anything follows. So one could infer some entirely unrelated claim, such as “The moon is made of cheese.” That’s why contradiction is so destructive in classical logic.
A paraconsistent logic blocks that result. It allows the inconsistency to remain local. From “John is in Paris” and “If John is in Paris, then John is in France,” we may still infer “John is in France.” But we don’t get to infer just anything whatever. We don’t get “The moon is made of cheese,” “John is in Tokyo,” or “God is a triangle” merely because the set contains a contradiction.
So paraconsistent logic can quarantine inconsistency. But that’s not the same as showing that the inconsistency doesn’t matter.
Applied to theology, suppose someone says:
- God is changeless.
- God changes.
A paraconsistent framework may prevent that contradiction from trivializing the whole system. But it doesn’t explain why we should accept both claims, how the contradiction is to be understood, what follows from it, what doesn’t follow from it, or why this isn’t an ad hoc escape from criticism.
I’d put it this way. Paraconsistent logic may show that contradiction isn’t always automatically fatal. It doesn’t show that contradiction is automatically acceptable. That further step still needs argument. A contradiction may be quarantined, but we still need to know why it deserves to remain in the theory at all.
In theology you’re just adding another layer that needs further explanation.
2 Likes
I get the overall gist of your post, but the point is exactly that inconsistency is unproblematic. It’s ok to say God is omniscient and we have free will. I understand such a statement in the same way as I understand John is in Paris and Maya is in Kampuchea. 
What I want to get across is that the accusation of inconsistency (against Christian doctrine) fails.
1 Like
For proving existence of God, the old formal or material logic cannot do it. It has to be modal logic with the concept of necessary being in the possible world, which would handle the topic better.
1 Like
These are important sides to the dyad, (happiness, suffering). I didn’t discount them. You forgot to mention schadenfreude, but no matter, it’s a matter for another field.
(Fight, sad), (Gift, happy) are also known ideo-asterisms and they’re part of larger ideo-constellations out there. My point is, does happiness go with humans or does it go with God? Which is a real ideo-asterism, or inversely which is false asterism, (God, Happiness) or (Human, Happiness)? You’ve played away games, haven’t you? 
1 Like
Thank you for your explanation. Yes, it is informative.
However, not quite sure if the ancient Bible authors methodology and intentions would be much help for us to decipher the content which are allegorical in most part. It looks like they had been trying to be as much allegorical possible for some reason. Would it have had been intentional or the authoring trend at the time, not sure. However.
Is it not the case that we must try to decipher with our own rational reasoning and inference on the content utilizing all the new analytical tools available such as Modal Logic, the concept of possible world and necessary being?
We know that science and technology wouldn’t be much help in deciphering the ancient allegorical contents due to lack of the material and archelogical data.
We could refer to the medieval and even modern theological writings, but they tend to be more liturgical than analytical.
Analytics could attract some negative views on the methodology, but the main point of the school is being lucid, neutral and objective.
I am having trouble understanding your pairing of happiness and suffering, (happiness, suffering). Shouldn’t happiness be paired with sadness, (happiness, sadness), enjoying paired with suffering, (enjoying, suffering), and pleasure paired with pain, (pleasure, pain), since happiness come from enjoying pleasure, and sadness come from suffering pain?
I would say happiness go with humans, (human, happiness), and perfect happiness go with God, (God, perfect happiness).
What is real ideo-asterism?
What is false asterism?
I got the impression you were asserting that inconsistencies in Christian doctrine did not matter, but here you seem to be saying that Christian doctrine is not inconsistent.
If you mean the former, you are accepting that the intellectual defence of Christian beliefs is a secondary issue and the foundations of Christian faith are non-rational. There are a number of accounts along those lines. I suggest that your time would be better spent reading up on those and reflecting what your faith is really founded on, given that it is not founded on rational grounds.
I think you are missing the point here. It would, no doubt, be of some historical interest to understand what the original authors meant by their allegories. But the Bible is taken as a guide to life for us, in our times. So it is not a matter of deciphering a code to arrive at the one trur meaning originally incorporated in it. It is a matter of working our how the original text can be understood to mean something for us, in our context.
However, I have serious doubts as to whether that project is possible.
If you read the history and current affairs in the world, a guide for life from anything sounds a bit too far fetched fantasy or a tongue-in-cheek expression.
If we don’t have too high or unrealistic expectation, and approach it with the basic reading attitude, then it could be still interesting metaphysical topics for Modal Logic.
1 Like
@ZPZ-l Yes (God, Meaning) is a thing; to me it’s a dyad, 2 related ideas. What do you have to say about it? Is it in any way related to (God, Happiness)?
@GregW You could posit (happiness, sadness) as a dyad, just as I’ve put forth the pair (happiness, suffering). It’s a definitional issue; my dyadic system accommodates both.
(God, Perfect Happiness), ok. Then?
Regarding real and false asterisms, I meant that happiness doesn’t go with humans as much as it goes with God. It’s like (bacon, milk) vs. (bacon, wine), or (life, cotton) vs. (life, water).
You do not need to know more about ideo-asterisms/constellation than what I’ve already stated in my previous posts. Think of it as seeing a pattern im the ideaverse. Chairs for sitting, hence (chair, sit); caps for protecting the head, hence (head, cap); (chair, sit, head, cap) can be a larger idea-complex.
The world has been described as our vale of tears. I acknowledge the reality of suffering - I began with the PoS. My intent is not to downplay the suffering in the world. However a Godless world goes with no happiness. That there’s happiness indicates that a God exists.
In the context of “The Problem of Happiness,” the term refers to a philosophical triad connecting God, meaning, and happiness, where happiness is described as a limited state operating within a narrow scope of understanding, while true “meaning” encompasses the entirety of existence and reaches the ultimate truth. The text suggests that suffering acts as a catalyst that exposes the limits of human perspective, forcing individuals to confront the illusion of existence until they realize that genuine happiness is found only in the acceptance of “no existence” or the void. Ultimately, the concept posits that humans are incomplete beings who must resolve their fragmented ideas through silence and patience, as stubbornly holding onto incomplete notions inevitably manifests further suffering.
Is this what you mean?
If yes then the triad, (God, Happiness, Meaning) is legit. Suffering is real and theists fully acknowledge it and can destroy faith in an instant. Quite odd that people are still religious and two-thirds to four-fifths of the world are. The numbers are dropping though; must be because of Youtube and other media outlets constantly hosting videos of disasters/violence/poverty/etc.
True that existence is a painful struggle against nothingness. That’s the why for antinatalism, and yet peeps seem to be reproducing at quite an alarming rate. Perhaps there’s a problem-solving Einstein in there somewhere. I mean if I take (say) 10 shots at a target, the probability I miss all of the 10 is quite low, \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{10} to be precise.
Suffering, which I superficially touch upon above, is a known issue in the world. I fully recognize that and so do theists but there’s also happiness. If suffering goes so well with atheism, would happiness also go with atheism? Whence cometh happiness?
Your name sounds like a chemical. Chemist by any chance? 
You made some interesting remarks. Would you like to expand and elaborate?
Yes, Happiness \to God, if that’s what you’re trying to say. The PoS hasn’t gone away though. If you look carefully, say when you’re in your happy place, you’ll see the sword of Damocles above you. Don’t worry though, all you have to do is play your cards right.
1 Like
A private joke I see. Must be a large group you’re part of. 
Yes, I’ve heard of the saying patience is a virtue. Unfortunately, I’m a bit forced to practice it, especially under certain circumstances, like long-winded speeches. Can you relate? Thanks for the advice though.
Happiness and sadness are just different forms of emotions. They are necessary for life. So, if there is a creator who is responsible for life, then he is the creator of all emotions as well. I, however, don’t see any relation between life and a creator. Therefore, I don’t see any relation between emotions and God.
1 Like
Are you talking with me?
But God created Eden, a place of happiness. A&E and their descendants would’ve been happy there if they hadn’t disobeyed God. God created emotions but he didn’t create suffering. You also say that suffering is necessary. It isn’t.
The probability of random chemical interactions resulting in the synthesis of biomolecules has been computed and it’s so low to be virtually impossible. The problem of how these biomolecules assemble to form cells and complex life is another major unsolved riddle.
You talk like a good pet.
Coming to your claim about meaning. (Meaning, Happiness) is a natural pair but so is (God, meaning). So our happiness comes from meaning and our meaning from God and God of course is God.
That is a myth with many logical problems.
Suffering is necessary for life. You become sad and suffer when you lose a part of your property or all of it. You feel pain when your body is damaged. You become mad when you are betrayed. You suffer deeply when one of your relatives dies because of an illness. Etc. Without suffering, we wouldn’t care for anything so we couldn’t have a life. Simply, people try to preserve their property, take care of their bodies, develop medicine so we can save lives, etc. because of suffering.