Thank you very much for your time as well my friend. It was a pleasure to discuss things with you.

Another hidden premise. — 180 Proof

It is not a hidden premise. I already mentioned it in OP.

Why not? – a third hidden premise. :roll: — 180 Proof

I already changed the argument. Please find it in the following and let me know what you think of it. Here is the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

I guess that you are referring to the argument of change for God from Aquinas. I think there is a jump in his argument when he refers unmoved mover as God, the creator. I think that unmoved mover refers to another entity that I call the Mind. The Mind is an Omnipresent substance in spacetime with the ability to experience and cause. The object of experience and causation is another substance. So I believe in a sort of substance dualism. I will shortly open another thread on this topic. I have a few threads open right now and am very busy with them. So until then.

Do you agree Jesus doesn't have God's essence from the OP's implication? — Corvus

If those words were the last words that Jesus said then yes, Jesus and God are not one.

If you are looking at the issue from general logic, then you could. — Corvus

No, I cannot. The concept of Christian God has been the subject of discussion by several important scholars for about 1000 years. It is not possible to summarize their works in a short post. I already cited Aquinas's article on the subject of the Trinity. Did you read it? I also suggested you read the post of @Count Timothy von Icarus. Did you read it?

I disagree. The real point is that if you acted in the situation of self defence, then the case is in the domain of legal matter of the society you live in. Morality doesn't apply to it. — Corvus

You know, my friend, you don't have a coherent view and don't want to accept that it is incoherent. So, there is nothing I can do to help you. So, let's say that we disagree.

1) No one but himself has right to decide what to do with his own life if he is an adult. — Corvus

So, do you agree with such a statement? If yes, then a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life.

2) From the maxim, it is wrong to kill life even if one's own life, hence life must go on even if it is challenging. — Corvus

Now, you are saying the opposite.

Please bear in mind that all case involving death is legal matter. But still practical reasoning can direct you to the best advice on the situation. — Corvus

Where do laws come from?

Your argument looks much better! Here's the structure:

P1) p
P2) p → q
C1) ∴ q
P3) q → r
P4) r → s
C2) ∴ s
P5) s → t
P6) t → u
C3) ∴ u

It's a valid argument. A very long argument, but valid nonetheless. — Arcane Sandwich

Thank you very much for your support. I learned from you how to write an argument in such a format.

Its soundness (or unsoundness) is a different matter, though. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true as well. But folks will probably claim that one of the premises is false. I'm guessing that the main target will be P1. In that case, you can construct a secondary argument, in which P1 is the conclusion. — Arcane Sandwich

As I mentioned in OP, I assume that P1 is true and see where it leads. The trueness of P1 is not the subject of this thread.

EDIT: Here's a tip. You don't need to explicitly state C1 and C2. If you remove them, the structure will look like this:

P1) p
P2) p → q
P3) q → r
P4) r → s
P5) s → t
P6) t → u
C3) ∴ u

In which case, your argument will read like so:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes — Arcane Sandwich

Oh, I see. This is even shorter. Thank you again for your contribution.

I spent several hours working on the argument. I changed P1 slightly and discarded P2, C1, and P3 because I no longer needed them. And here is the new argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
C1) So, there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
C2) So, the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

Please let me know what you think. As always, your criticisms and input are welcome.

The point is you kill a human being even though you think it is objectively wrong. Call it self-defense or whatever. That does not resolve the issue.

Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions. — Corvus

It is alright to change your mind. Let's say that we disagree on the topic.

So we can conclude that Jesus and God is not one. — Corvus

No, as I mentioned, the persons of the Trinity are different from God's essence. I already cited an article on the topic if you are interested in reading more, as I cannot summarize the discussion on this topic shortly. @Count Timothy von Icarus summarized and discussed the idea in a relatively short post here.

I think we first must distinguish between subjective time and objective time. We perceive subjective time rather than objective one. The subjective time is created in the brain, and it is subject to change, depending on the mood, emotion, substance usage, diseases, etc. This article discusses the subjective time. Objective time is a part of the spacetime manifold and it is the subject of physics though.

Neither C1 nor C2 validly follow because P1 is not true — 180 Proof

As I mentioned in OP, in this thread I am not interested in discussing whether P1 is true or false. I assume it is true and see what it leads to.

P2 contains a hidden premise ("There exists a creator"). — 180 Proof

God is by definition the creator. To make this explicit I can change P1 from "God exists", to "God exists and is the creator".

So in a linear way, I agree with the idea that God changes - there was God before creation, and THEN there is God after creation, so God, after creation, exists in a new context, and, from our perspective, looks new, and therefore, is changed and new. — Fire Ologist

My point, as you noticed, is that the act of creation requires a decision so God has to change to create.

God is impossible to think of. God and creation make no sense, empirically.

The explanation empirically is probably something like, God the Father draws motion, but does not move; God the Son moves to the Father and through the Son all things (like us) exist; God as Spirit unifies the Father and Son as one God, and therefore is both motion and permanence at once.

Impossible. — Fire Ologist

Here, I am not going to discuss the Christian God.

Whereas I think that something like the following would work better:

P1) God exists.
P2) If so, then the act of creation can be defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing.
C1) So, the act of creation can be defined as an act of creation the creation from nothing.
P3) If so, then there is a situation in which the creation does not exist.
P4) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists.
C2) So, there is a situation in which only God exists.

Why does this other version work better? Because it now it can be formalized using propositional logic, like so:

P1) p
P2) p → q
C1) ∴ q
P3) q → r
P4) r → s
C2) ∴ s — Arcane Sandwich

Thank you very much for investing the time and effort to change my version of the argument to yours. I think that is a great step since you refined the argument into two syllogisms.

Here's the tree proof. Basically, your argument just needed the use of conditionals (if, then), symbolized by "→". My only objection here, from a strategic (not logical) standpoint, is that you're giving your detractors way too many premises to deny. Think of it like this: why would you give them so many potential targets? Additionally, an argument with less premises is more parsimonious, and parsimony is arguably a good thing. — Arcane Sandwich

I agree that the first half of the argument is slightly long but I don't see any way to make it shorter than what it is now. My first argument was pretty short. It has three premises, one definition, and the rest were conclusions. I think I can write the argument in a better form after considering the criticisms and objections of people but the new short form might not be suitable to put it in first-order predicate logic so let's don't take that path right now since we have a great progress right now.

By the way, what do you think of the other half of the argument in OP? Your criticisms and objections are always welcome.

Disturbed is my only favorite heavy metal band and Down with the Sickness is one of my favorite songs.

I’m happy to grant that at its core, morality may actually be subjective , I’m struggling to find reason behind the jump from the Is to the ought. — KantRemember

There is no ought when we deal with subjective morality. You are basically in a situation that is defined by the four factors. You weigh factors and then decide freely. You have all right when it comes to your life so there is no problem at all.

I was taking some time to reflect on my arguments and have ultimately decided on a moral pluralist approach. Even if we accept the premises that 1. Life is inherently valuable and 2. It is objectively better to act in should a way that preserves life if this is the case, there is still a jump from this to the normative claim that I ought to act in such a way. — KantRemember

Yes, there is a jump. Kant tries to resolve the gap by universalizing a maxim. There is however a valid objection to universalizing, the objection being why we should universalize a maxim to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. There is also a danger in accepting objective morality considering the cases of locked-in syndrome, or those who are terminally ill, etc. How are you going to deal with these cases if you accept that the act of killing is objectively wrong?

I think ultimately, objectivity is necessary for collective life, there are axioms that we just have to accept in order for society and morality to function - if we were to accept and act in a way that aligns with subjectivism on a broad scale then life would be reduced to anarchy - the truth is, pragmatically, we must act in a way that follows atleast some universal maxim, life being valuable, and it would be detrimental to reduce morality to mere feeling and opinion. — KantRemember

It is a matter of practical reasoning rather than pure reason as you mentioned. We need laws as a matter of necessity but this necessity is a matter of practicality.

In extreme case scenarios - a consequentialist approach is often better. But there are implications to the radicalisation of both sides. — KantRemember

I think consequentialism is one of the best approaches. You have a situation that is defined by at least two options, you consider the pros and cons, and you then decide. As simple as that.

Thank you for this discussion. I hope you gain something from this and realise that outside of arm chair philosophy, morality needs to have an objective framework. — KantRemember

Thank you very much for your time too.

Well, it seems like a tough situation. But still practical reason tells me that killing is bad, and life must go on. Everyone has a cross to bear in the path of life. In some sense all life could be seen as suffering, and persevering and hoping for the best would be the meaning of life from religious point of view. — Corvus

Are you a Christian?

Keep going, and hoping for the miracle cure seeking the medical care in your example case with perseverance would be best for him, and doing so is moral good for sure. — Corvus

There is no cure available for it. It is interesting to see that at one point you say that it is his life and he has the right to decide about it. Now, you are saying that assisting him to terminate his life is not allowed.

You don't wait for legal authority to allow you to kill the psychopath. Do you? You said you would kill him as a matter of self-defense. I then ask how self-defense is morally allowed if you think that killing under any circumstance is not morally allowed.

Ok, let's see what is my domain of discourse. The concepts that I am dealing with are God, the creation, the act of creation, the situation before the act of creation, and the situation after the act of creation. That is all and they are all necessary for my argument. What do you think?

"A" means "causes the act of creation", so "Ag" means "God causes the act of creation". — Arcane Sandwich

Ok, thanks.

I'm not sure if I should encourage you to keep working on it, or if I should tell you to take a break from this argument and to occupy your mind with something else. — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks but don't worry about my time. I am a retired person so I have plenty of time. I however have several interests so I have to manage my time accordingly.

Here's my two cents. Ideally, you would want to use propositional logic to formalize your arguments. You should only use predicate logic when propositional logic is insufficient for your purposes. Think of it like this: why would you use a formula one race car to go to the supermarket, when an ordinary car is enough for that purpose? — Arcane Sandwich

So what do you think of the new revision for the first part of the argument?

It means: there is no x, such that x is not identical to God. — Arcane Sandwich

I see. I however want to say that there is a situation in which God only exists.

Unless what is meant here by "God" is synonymous with "nothing" ... — 180 Proof

No, that in my opinion does not follow at all. Anyhow, I changed the argument to remove the problems and ambiguities. Please find the new argument in the following:

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

First – (D1) "from nothing" contradicts (P1) "caused by an agent"; thus, (C1) is invalid. — 180 Proof

No, there is no contradiction. By "creation from nothing" I mean that the creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

Second – (C1) also does not follow "from P1 and D1" whereby you conflate "nothing" (D1) with "nothing but God" which are not ontologically equivalent. — 180 Proof

I agree that the argument in the former format is not clear enough. That was the main reason that I offered a revision, please see the new argument in my first comment.

(C1) is consistent with "... an act of creation of something from God" (D1 revised); however, this revision implies pan-en-theism (or even a-cosmism) instead of theism. — 180 Proof

I cannot see how that follows. Do you mind elaborating?

Indeed. The predicate letter "C" means "causes", in this case. So, Cga means "God causes the act of creation". I'd prefer not to use "C" as a two-place predicate, but you need something that relates "g" and "a". — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for the elaboration. I see what you mean.

You might even want to ditch "a", and simply say: Ag. That's another possibility. — Arcane Sandwich

What does "A" mean here? Does "Ag" mean that God is the creator? If yes, I think it is useful to keep this in mind and see how things evolve.

C1) ∃x∀y(Gy ↔ (x=y)) — Arcane Sandwich

I guess that "Gy" means that "y" is God or God exists. Please correct me if I am wrong. All I need for the first part of the argument is to conclude that there is a situation in which God only exists, so I just want to stress on "only". I understand what your C1 is saying but I am sure that it can be simplified further.

Now C1 is no longer tautological. But if you do this, then P1 and D1 would have to be rewritten. — Arcane Sandwich

I spent the whole morning trying to rewrite the first part of the argument. I have two formulations right now but I think the first formulation is simpler and more suitable to be written in first-order predicate logic. Here is the first formulation:

P1) God exists
D1) The act of creation is defined as an act of creating the creation from nothing
P2) The creation exists
C1) Therefore, there is a situation in which the creation does not exist (from D1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, there is a situation in which God only exists (from P1 and C1)

Let me know what you think. By the way, thank you very much for helping me write my argument using first-order predicate logic and for criticizing it.

Another option is to keep "g" for "God", and to formalize C1 like so:

C1) ∀x(x=g) — Arcane Sandwich

I understand what C1 says here, but I believe that it is not suitable. All I want to say is C2 in the new formulation. Please let me know what you think.

Alternatively, you could say:

C1) ¬∃x(¬(x=g)) — Arcane Sandwich

I have a difficult time understanding this one. Could you please write this one in English?

Is the state of affairs in question something different from God? If it is, then it's not true that only God exists and nothing else, since there would exist a state of affairs. In other words, you'd have two things 1) God, and 2) the state of affairs itself.
On the other hand, if you want to say that there is only God, then you have two options: 1) to declare that God is identical to the state of affairs itself, or 2) to drop the notion of a state of affairs entirely, at least here. — Arcane Sandwich

I changed the conclusions, C1 and C2, accordingly to avoid further confusion. Please let me know what you think.

Ok, I see.

Isn't YHWH a name of God?

Thank you very much for your note.

Thank you very much for your post. It refreshed my memory of things I read a long time ago, almost ten years ago, if not longer. I read your post once but I need to read it more to reflect properly and give a proper response.

I'm trying to see how your argument could be formalized. Clearly, propositional logic is insufficient here. So, we need, at the very least, first order predicate logic (if not second order or higher order). Be that as it may, let's focus on the first part, if only for the sake of simplicity. How would you formalize the following? — Arcane Sandwich

Thank you very much for your interest and offering to help me write the argument in first-order predicate logic. I am not a logician, so I need your help to understand what you mean by your notation.

P1) Cga — Arcane Sandwich

What do you mean by "C" here? I guess by "g" you refer to God and by "a" you mean the act of creation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

D1) a = df c(s,n) — Arcane Sandwich

I think I understand that. So we are on the same page.

C1) ∃x(x=g) — Arcane Sandwich

I think this step means that there is an x such that x is God. My C1, however, says a different thing. There is x such that there exists a God and nothing else.

I don't think this would be a good formalization, because even though it's valid, you wouldn't need P1 and D1 to conclude C1, because C1 is tautological. — Arcane Sandwich

Therefore, I think that C1 follows from P1 and D1, so it is not tautological.

So, I'd like to know how you would formalize your own argument. — Arcane Sandwich

Perhaps changing C1 from " Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God" to " Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there exists God but nothing else". That is what I meant by the first form but perhaps the second form is more clearer.

Yes, that means that God exists in time. Any change requires time. I have an argument for that. It is off-topic and I wanted to discuss it in another thread but here you go since you asked for it: Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise these states occur simultaneously and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on different points of a variable, let's call these points tx and ty. ty, however, comes after tx to allow that X comes after Y. This variable I call time.

I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one. — Corvus

MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different.

Killing a psychopath before he kills me would be an act of self defense, which has nothing to do with morality. The action may be subject to legal probes in the society later, but it is not a moral issue. — Corvus

It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours.

I thought it was a form of hikikomori, but maybe it is not.
It doesn't matter what it is. The whole point is about the principle of morality and how it works. — Corvus

You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed.

Sure, if we define subjective to mean something that people have an opinion about, then everything, literally everything, is subjective. To reiterate, by valuing of life I don't mean conscious intent, or how much you care for life in the sense that you'd care about your dog etc., - its more so an imperative necessary for us to even live, or rational agents. — KantRemember

I think four factors construct any situation when a decision is required. These factors are feelings, beliefs, opinions, and interests. We most of the time can decide in a situation merely by weighting these factors. Practical reason however can help us decide when there is a ground for it. For example, you have an interest to increase your wealth and you know that the value of the share in market is increasing, therefore you decide to invest in the market. When it comes to moral situations, practical reasoning can help us as well. Pure reason, like the one of Kant, however, gets us astray as it is illustrated. I will comment more on this in the following.

Yes, exactly - its nonsensical to say you don't value life, while being alive and living as such - for all intents and purposes its a necessary precondition. This is what makes it objective - we know that there isn't any measurable laws in the universe that define moral codes, morality isn't objective in that sense. — KantRemember

Morality is not objective but subjective even in the first sense.

The distinction to be made here is between something being justifiable and something being moral - but this is a huge grey area, there's other threads on the matter, and to be frank, I don't even know if my opinions are consistent across the board. Practically, how could they be? — KantRemember

By justifiable I mean morally justifiable.

Subjective meaning based on individual feelings interests beliefs etc... that is to say morality is merely what I, individually, think about something, It's more than that. Objective being something that's not constitutively dependant on the attitudes of observers, but reason also. — KantRemember

I am arguing that pure reason cannot help us when it comes to morality. So, we are left to feelings, interests, beliefs, opinions, and, of course, practical reasoning. Therefore, morality cannot be objective but subjective.

No. you stated earlier that subjective means for something to be based on opinion etc. and before that you stated that something is subjective if people HAVE opinions about it. — KantRemember

Morality is subjective since the pure reason that is based on accepted facts not only does not exist but it adds problems even if we accept that there is.

These are very different. We have opinions about everything, you have an opinion on X, X can be based in facts and yet you can have an opinion on how you feel towards X. That doesn't make X subjective. — KantRemember

If pure reason does not exist when it comes to morality, then we are left with feelings, opinions, beliefs, and interests. Therefore, morality is subjective.

1. To take into account the needs and lives of others rather than just our own or those close to us. — KantRemember

I asked why we should accept universalization as a valid step. Your life has a value for you, then live it, otherwise you have all right to terminate it. We don't need Kant's formulation to decide about our lives. Accepting this step, universalization, leads to many problems as I discussed, such as whether torturing the terrorist is right or wrong.

2. See above, life having value is a necessary precondition to rational agency and life itself. Life does have value and it HAS to have value and since this is the case, the conclusion follows. — KantRemember

Life having value is subjective. Consider the case of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc.

A common retort to his deontology, this is one that keeps me questioning too. I don't know what the 'right' thing to do is in these specific circumstances. Kant would say that killing is categorically wrong but the consequentialist would say otherwise. In real life, morality is sort of a mix of both Kantian and consequentialist ethics. Both come with their limitations. — KantRemember

I am afraid that you cannot have both so you have to choose one. Either you accept pure reason which means that we are not allowed to assist a person with locked-in syndrome to terminate his life or you accept consequentialism, which allows you to help him.

If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man." — Corvus

You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you?

It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption. — Corvus

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably?

I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. — Corvus

How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you?

But he also has his right to decide on his own life. — Corvus

He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision.

The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives. — Corvus

It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist.