Thoughts on
Science and Faith
Home Chapter Outline Featured Discusion
Q&A
Contact
Form
Logic of the Bible
When people start to mature,
they find themselves asking
big questions.
Why am I here?
What's the purpose of life?
Where did it all come from,
and where is it all going?
Why is there anything at all?
What should I do with my life?
And how should I behave in the world?
They begin to question everything,
and they want to know
the truth for themselves.
They become dissatisfied
with simply being told
what to believe.
And they wonder
if there are any real reasons
to believe it.
So the questions come:
are there any
principles of reason
that we can rely on
to give us certainty
about what to believe?
Are there any reliable precepts
that give guidance
on how to behave?
Are there any trustworthy rules
that tell us why the world is
the way it is?
I believe there are.
And here I would like
to show you
the general principles of reason
that can be used
to understand reality
and our place in it.
These are the principles
that underlie many of the
proverbs and precepts of Scripture
such as the Golden Rule.
The principles
to which I'm referring
are the basic rules of logic.
Logic is the study
of how true and false statements
relate to each other.
How can we claim things like
God's Word is true
and fail to study logic
which is the basic math
of true and false?
And what I present here
is not difficult;
it can be taught
to grade-school children.
I talk about
the basic relationships
of AND's, OR's, and IF's.
Much of this
you will already know instinctively.
And there are many books and resources
to study logic in depth.
So I will be brief.
If you are already familiar with logic,
the interpretations start
here.
Every area of study
such as math, science, biology,
history, politics, and theology
all make statements
about the subject
and show how one fact
in that area leads to another fact.
Logic is the study of propositions.
And propositions are sentences
that make statements of fact
that we can consider
to be true or false.
This differs from other sentences
such as questions, or commands,
or exclamations
which make no claims
that are either true or false.
Other names
for the concept of a proposition
are "statement", "fact", "claim",
"assertion", "assumption", "supposition", etc.
Some examples of propositions are:
the light is on;
2+3=4;
the sky is blue;
the grass is green;
no one is perfect;
all men are mortal;
some men are evil,
and there is only one God.
All these statements
are either true or false.
A proposition has a truth-value
that is either true or false.
It cannot be both true and false
at the same time,
and it cannot be
neither true nor false.
A proposition must be
either true or false.
This is much easier
than a number
which could be any one
of an infinite possibility of values.
So logic is much easier than arithmetic.
And a proposition
does not depend
on the language used to say it.
It will mean the same thing
and be either true or false
whether it is written
in English or Spanish
or Japanese or Greek or Hebrew.
And since we are not focusing
on which language to use,
we might as well make things
as simple as possible
and abbreviate our statements
with as few symbols as possible.
For example,
we could use the letter, L,
to represent the statement,
"the light is on".
Or we could
represent the statement,
"the sky is blue",
with the letter, B.
We could use the letter, T,
to represent
that a statement is true.
And we could use F for false.
Then we can
abbreviate the fact
that the sky is blue
by writing, B=T.
And we can write L=F
when the light is not on.
As long as the symbols used
are defined somewhere
in the text you're reading,
and as long as the author
uses the symbols to mean
the same thing throughout the book,
then it should be easy enough
to follow the author's arguments
as he uses those symbols.
We can use symbols
to represent propositions
in a more general sense.
If we let the letter, p,
stand for any statement,
then we are not concerned
with what the statement is about.
We're only concerned
with its essential characteristic
of being either true or false, T or F.
And since p is not about
any particular subject,
there's no way to know
whether it is true or not.
So we must consider
every possible truth-value
that it might have.
We have to
consider the possibility that
it might be true,
and we have to
consider the possibility
that it might be false.
And if we use another letter, q,
to stand for any other proposition,
then the only thing
we mean by this
is that it is different
than the proposition, p.
But q is still either true or false,
and we must consider
every possible truth-value of q.
And we can construct
more complicated statements
by connecting simple statements
with words like, "and", "or", "not",
"if", "then", "but" and "when", etc.
These more complicated statements
are called compound statements,
and they are
just as much propositions
that are also either true or false.
For example, consider the statement,
"the paper is white".
We can abbreviate this statement
with the symbol, W.
Then an easy compound statement
can be constructed
from this simple statement
by negating it.
A statement is negated
when the word, "not",
is placed in the statement
to make a true statement false
or a false statement true.
In this example,
if the paper is indeed white,
then W=T.
The negation of this
is the paper is not white.
Or we can write this
as, "not W".
It is customary
to use the symbol, "~",
to symbolize the word, "not".
Then the negation
of the statement, W, is ~W
and is read, "not W".
If W=T, then ~W=F,
and if W=F, then ~W=T.
If we generalize further,
and use an arbitrary proposition, p,
then we can construct
a truth-table to show the effect of a negation
on every possible truth-value
that p can have.
This is shown in the following table.
Below is the truth-table
for the negation of proposition, p.
The first column on the left
lists every possible truth-value
that p can have.
The second column lists
the effect of
applying the negation, ~ ,
to each truth-value of p.
The effect
is to reverse its truth-value.
It should be noted
that since there is only
two possible truth-values
to any proposition,
we have ~ ~ p = p.
The effect of applying
the negation twice
is to get the truth-value
with which you started.
Now let's consider constructing
a compound statement
by connecting
two simple statements together
with the connective word, "and".
We already have W,
meaning the paper is white.
Consider another statement,
"The ink is black".
Let's give this the symbol, I.
Then we can construct
the compound statement,
"The paper is white,
and the ink is black."
And this whole statement
is true only when
it is true that the paper is white,
and it is also true that
the ink is black.
If either of
the simple statements is false,
then the whole statement is false.
With the symbols defined here,
we could more easily
write this as, "W and I".
And this proposition is true
only if W=T and I=T,
and the statement is false
if either W=F or I=F
or both W=F and I=F.
It is customary
to represent the word, "and",
with the symbol, "⋀".
Then the compound statement above
can be written, W⋀ I,
and is read, "W and I",
or more formally it is read,
"W is in conjunction with I".
And we can generalize
by considering the conjunction
of any two arbitrary propositions, p and q,
with a truth-table for conjunction.
Below is the truth-table
for the conjunction of p and q.
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
| p |
q |
p⋀q |
| F |
F |
F |
| F |
T |
F |
| T |
F |
F |
| T |
T |
T |
Columns 1 and 2 list
every combination of true and false
that p and q can have.
And Column 3 lists
the corresponding truth-value
for the conjunction of p and q.
Note that the conjunction is true
only if both p and q are true.
And similarly,
we can construct
a compound statement
with the connective word, "or".
We call compound statements
connected with "or"
a disjunction,
and the word, "or",
can be symbolizes as, "⋁".
For example, consider
the compound statement,
"I have steak, or I have eggs."
We can represent this
in symbols as, "S⋁E",
where S and E have the obvious meaning.
This statement is true
when any one of S or E is true.
And below is the truth-table
for the disjunction
of any two arbitrary propositions, p and q.
| p |
q |
p⋁q |
| F |
F |
F |
| F |
T |
T |
| T |
F |
T |
| T |
T |
T |
The first two columns list every
combination of p and q as before.
The right column lists
the corresponding truth-value
for the disjunction of p and q.
Note that the disjunction is true
if any one of p or q is true.
It is false only if both p and q are false.
And lastly,
let's consider compound statements
connected by the words, "if" and "then".
These are of the form:
if something, then something else.
They are called conditional statements
because the truth of the "something else"
depends on the condition of
the "something" being true.
For example,
consider the sentence:
if the switch is up,
then the light is on.
This if-then sentence
is itself a statement that,
like any other statement,
is either true or false.
This conditional sentence
does not say that
the switch is up or down,
and it does not say
that the light is on or off.
But if this if-then statement is true,
then it only means
that when it is true
that the switch is up,
then we are guaranteed
that it is true
that the light is on.
If the switch were up
when the light is off,
however, then this conditional sentence
would be a false statement.
So if the light is off,
then the switch had better be down.
Yet this if-then sentence
does not mean
that if the switch is down,
then the light
must necessarily be off.
The light might go on
for other reasons,
one of which
is the switch being up.
There might also be
other switches
that turn the light on.
In the formal study of logic,
the simple statement
after the "if"
is called the antecedent;
in the sentence above,
the antecedent would be,
"the switch is up".
And the simple statement
after the "then"
is called the consequent;
in the sentence above
the consequent would be,
"the light is on".
The entire if-then statement itself
is called a material implication
because the antecedent
implies the consequent.
The antecedent and consequent
could be any kind of
proposition or statement.
And if we generalize
by symbolizing the antecedent
with the letter, p,
and symbolizing the consequent
with the letter, q,
then we can consider
every combination
of truth-values for p and q
and show the truth-table
for material implication.
Below is the truth-table
for material implication,
which is given the symbol, "→".
| p |
q |
p→q |
| F |
F |
T |
| F |
T |
T |
| T |
F |
F |
| T |
T |
T |
Note that an implication
can be stated between
any two propositions
as long as the consequent q
is not false when the antecedent p
is true.
Also it is interesting to note
that with the AND and OR connectives,
p can be interchanged with q.
But with implication
the position of p and q matters,
and the order of their use
cannot be interchanged.
And the relationship
of material implication
can be constructed in English
using words other than "if" and "then".
For example,
it should be easy to recognize
the antecedent and consequent
in the following sentences:
The car will move
when you step on the gas pedal.
Whatever goes up must come down.
Twisting the nose produces blood.
Fire results from lighting a match.
Arguments have a similar construction
to the conditional statement
where the truth of one set of facts
leads to the belief in the truth
of another set of facts.
In the language of an argument,
the antecedent is called the premise,
and the consequent is called
the conclusion of the argument.
And the usual argument
is of the form:
the premise proves the conclusion.
And instead of saying
that the conditional statement is true,
we say that an argument is valid
when the conclusion logically follows
from the premise.
The following sentences are arguments
where I have put a (p)
immediately after the premise,
and I put a (c) just after
the conclusion.
Because the car is moving
with constant speed up the hill (p),
the car must have an engine (c).
All men are mortal
and Socrates is a man (p);
therefore, Socrates is mortal (c).
We know that the moon
is not made of green cheese (c)
since the astronauts
have brought back moon rocks (p).
Now, we can debate
whether these arguments are valid
or whether the premises are true.
But if the argument is valid
and the premises are true,
then the conclusion
is necessarily true.
And English is more of a
subtle and complicated language
than logic;
it takes practice and experience
to translate a spoken language
into the symbols of logic.
But when we do,
we can have more confidence
in understanding the meaning
of those words.
For example,
a conclusion typically follows
words like, "therefore", "hence",
"thus", "so", "proves that",
"consequently", "it follows that",
"we may conclude that",
and "we may infer that", etc.
And a premise typically follows
words like, "since", "because",
"for", "as", "in as much as",
and "for the reason that", etc.
It is important to understand
that the relationship of proof
between premise and conclusion
has the same truth-table
as does the relationship
of implication between
antecedent and consequent.
One is just another way
of saying the other.
And other ways
of specifying an implication
are that there is an hypothesis,
or theory, or reason, or explanation
that relates one set of facts to another.
When people start asking why,
and look for meaning or purpose,
what they are really asking
is how, and what set of facts
leads to that.
When they want to be certain,
they are asking how to be sure
that one set of facts
will lead to the result.
They are asking how to be sure
your argument or theory is valid
and how you know
your premises are true.
Even matters of faith
and ultimate purpose
rest on being sure of the facts
and what they imply.
Is your theory reasonable?
And since proof, or material implication,
is so important to understanding,
it should be interesting to know
that the AND and OR connectives
can be expressed in terms
of implication.
This is easily proved
with a truth-table
for any arbitrary propositions, p and q.
For example,
the truth-table below
shows that the conjunction, p⋀q,
can be expressed in terms
of material implication as, ~(p→~q).
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| p |
q |
~q |
p→~q |
~(p→~q) |
p⋀q |
| F |
F |
T |
T |
F |
F |
| F |
T |
F |
T |
F |
F |
| T |
F |
T |
T |
F |
F |
| T |
T |
F |
F |
T |
T |
There are six columns,
labeled 1 through 6.
Columns 1 and 2 list
every combination of truth-values
that p and q can have.
Column 3 lists
the negation of Column 2.
Column 4 lists the truth-values
for when p implies ~q.
Here we put a T
whenever Column 1 implies Column 3.
The only time Column 4 is false
is the last row
where Column 1 is T but Column 3 is F,
which is contrary to implication.
Column 5 is just the negation
of Column 4.
The parenthesis only mean
we evaluate what is inside the parenthesis
before evaluating what's outside of them.
And Column 6
is the conjunction of p and q
that we have seen before.
Notice that
for every possible value of p and q,
Column 5 has the same value
as Column 6.
This proves that (p⋀q) = ~(p→~q).
In a similar way
a truth-table can be set up
to show that (p⋁q) = (~p→q).
I will let the interested readers
set up the table
and prove this for themselves.
And so it is interesting to note
that all of propositional logic
can be expressed in terms
of parenthesis, implication, and negation.
No matter how complicated
your propositional logic expression,
it can be reduced
to the use of 3 symbols
and the variables used.
There are a few more tables
that need to be shown
before discussing how all this
relates to recognizing the developing
proverbs and principles.
First, it should be noted
that a conjunction of facts
has implications.
It's easy to show that (p⋀q)→(p→q),
as shown with the table below.
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| p |
q |
p⋀q |
p→q |
(p⋀q) → (p→q) |
| F |
F |
F |
T |
T |
| F |
T |
F |
T |
T |
| T |
F |
F |
F |
T |
| T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
Column 3 in the table above
is the standard definition
of conjunction,
and Column 4
is the definition of implication.
What should be noticed here is that
there is no combination of p and q
for which Column 3 is T when Column 4 is F.
This means Column 5 is never false.
So we have proved
that (p⋀q)→(p→q) is identically true
for all values of p and q,
and so it can be accepted
as a general principle.
Since we have
from the
table previous to last
that ~(p→~q)=(p⋀q),
and we have from the
last table
that (p⋀q)→(p→q),
we know that ~(p→~q)→(p→q).
And there is no need
to construct a table to prove this
since this is easily seen
by replacing equivalent statements.
This is the principle
behind my verses on Page 4
that read,
"And if a fact that is assumed
does not disprove reality,
then we may conclude
that the fact is true
and can be used to prove everything."
Here p is the fact that is assumed,
and q is reality or everything.
Saying that p does not disprove q means ~(p→~q).
And if this is true, then so is (p⋀q),
which means that p is true,
which in turn means
that it proves that q is true.
You might also recognize this principle
in the saying,
"For whoever is not against you is for you."
Luke 9:50.
Precepts and proverbs
and general principles
are not specific
to particular people, places or things.
They apply to
a broad range of circumstances and situations.
And the more circumstances
and the broader the range of situations
to which a general principle applies,
the more useful it is.
The principles of logic
are the most general
and are valid in all situations
because they apply
to the relationship between all statements
without regard to
any particular subject matter.
Any precept, rule, theory, or proverb
finds its validity
when it is an interpretation
of logical principles.
If we can discover the logic
behind a proverb or principle,
then that validates its reliability
and justifies its use.
For example, the Golden Rule
could be derived
as shown in the following table:
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| p |
q |
p⋀q |
p→q |
q→p |
(p→q)→(q→p) |
(p⋀q)→[(p→q)→(q→p)] |
| F |
F |
F |
T |
T |
T |
T |
| F |
T |
F |
T |
F |
F |
T |
| T |
F |
F |
F |
T |
T |
T |
| T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
Column 3 and 4 are
conjunction and implication as before.
Column 5 is where q implies p
and is only false in the second row
where q is T but p is F.
Column 6 is where
Column 4 implies Column 5.
And Column 7 is where
the conjunction
of Column 3 implies Column 6.
And since Column 7
is true for all values of p and q,
this proves
that it is a general principle
useful in all circumstances.
Thus, we have as a valid principle:
(p ⋀ q) → [ (p → q) → (q → p) ] The Golden Rule.
This says that
if two things coexist in conjunction,
then if one implies
the state of another,
then the other
will imply the state of the one.
This is a general principle
of logical reasoning.
So it should apply
to particles as well as to people.
It should apply
to the past, present and future.
It should help us
to predict the future
as well as explain the past.
It is a key to prophecy, precepts,
understanding ultimate destiny,
and giving us rules to live by.
For example,
with two particles
interacting with each other,
we can interpret the Golden Rule
as follows:
if one particle
exerts a force on another,
then the other
will exert a force on the one.
Or as Isaac Newton's
third law of motion might say,
"for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Here I'm interpreting material implication, "→",
to mean the act of exerting a force,
since that does imply a change
in a particle to some other state.
And the states involved
are described by propositions
that specify the position and momentum
of a particle.
Implication can always
be interpreted as
one fact exerting an action
on another fact.
In logic that action is
to change the truth-value
of one proposition depending
on another.
For particles, that action
is the act of applying a force.
For people, that action
may result in one person
causing pleasure or pain
to another.
So in the realm of people,
the Golden Rule could be stated,
if two people
are coexisting in society,
then whatever action
one person does to another,
then that person
has the right to do to the one.
Or, an eye for an eye,
tooth for a tooth
(
Ex 21:24).
And since this is the case
you should do to others
what you want them
to do to you
(
Matt 7:12).
You should love your neighbor
as yourself (
Lev 19:18).
For God will give to everyone
according to what he has done
(
Rev 22:12).
Other verses
to which this applies would be:
Give and it will be given to you (
Lk 6:38).
Do not judge,
or you too will be judged.
For in the same way
you judge others,
you will be judged,
and with the measure you use,
it will be measured to you (
Matt 7:1).
However,
some people might object
to being treated as a proposition.
That seems too simplistic to them.
They'd rather think
that logic is a game
of manipulating symbols
when constructing arguments.
It might help in discerning
the truth about statements
in math or science.
And it might help
in establishing facts
in a court of law.
But humans have free will
in what they assert
and how they behave.
So how can logic apply to morality?
How can true and false
say anything about right or wrong?
So they think that morality
is arbitrarily based on
political correctness,
and they try to
change public opinion
to suit their own desires.
Yet it is the
definition of irresponsible
to think and act like
your actions
do not have consequences
that effect you in return.
And if you're going to claim
that your deeds
are not subject
to the reason of logic,
then neither are you
being reasonable
when you go
through the effort
to state your objections.
You are
negating the validity
of your own opinion
by saying that
there are no consequences
to what you do or say.
For the underlying assumption
of any argument or claim
is that your words and deeds
have consequences
like any other statement,
or else you would not bother
to say or do anything
if you thought your actions
had no effect.
Your very life
is like a proposition,
for it is either true or false
that you are alive or dead.
It is either true or false
that you have an eye or a tooth.
And it is either true or false
that you are the cause
of someone missing
an eye or tooth or hand or life.
You certainly think
your deeds serve
as the premise for the conclusion
of getting paid for your work.
You certainly hope
someone will love you in return
when you make an effort
to love them.
And you feel like taking revenge
and acting towards them
in like manner
when someone hurts you,
don't you?
Then this proves you believe
that one's words and his deeds
form a statement to be judged
and responded to in kind.
This rule is engrained in us
as deeply as our feelings
of love and revenge
and responsibility and obligation.
And these principles apply
to more than your actions
towards others.
Your personal integrity
can be established by these rules.
For other interpretations
of the Golden Rule
would be the proverbs:
Start over.
Get back to basics.
Make sure of your faith.
You must be born again (Jn 3:3).
For all these proverbs
describe a process
of self-reflection,
where you put your efforts
into improving the basic assumptions
on which you act.
Your basic assumptions
are the premise
that causes you to act,
therefore, your actions
should be to find reliable truths
to live by.
For according to your faith
will it be done unto you
(
Mt 9:29).
Your faith causes you
to interpret the world as you do,
and so the events in your life
will only be evidence
that proves to you what you believed.
As Job said,
"What I feared has come upon me;
what I dreaded has happened to me." (
Job 3:25).
So let's try to find
better reasons
to have more confidence in life.
When propositions are used
to describe physical circumstances,
and you insert a value of time
between the start and ending
circumstances,
then the premise and conclusion
of material implication
become the cause and effect
of physical interaction.
The implication you assert
between cause and effect
becomes an hypothesis or theory
that can be tested
if you can set up the circumstance
that form the cause.
If the effect takes place,
then this tends
to confirm your theory,
although there might be
other circumstances
that have the same effect.
With this in mind
it becomes possible
to start thinking in terms of
the ultimate cause
of all things
and the ultimate fate
of the world.
And we can start thinking
about the theory of everything,
where the laws of nature come from,
and is there an ultimate purpose
that determines the fate
of the universe.
But then we need
some definition of "everything"
or "the world" or "the universe"
or "reality"
in terms of the logic we are using.
The definition that works here
is to say that the universe consists
of a conjunction
of all the facts in it.
For the most obvious things we can say
about the world is that
this thing exists,
and that thing exists,
and those things over there exist, etc.,
and they all coexist in conjunction.
We can use
propositions that are true
to describe
various parts of the world
that do exist.
Then reality can be defined as,
R=p⋀q⋀r⋀s⋀t⋀u⋀v⋀w⋀… ,
where each of the letters
in this conjunction
represents a proposition
that describes a small part
of reality.
And each of them
has to be a true description
for there to be
a true description of all reality.
And it may take
an infinite number of propositions
to describe all of reality.
And each proposition in itself
might consist of a conjunction
of even more propositions
that describe even smaller parts of it.
It should be noted
that p=p⋀p,
for if p is T,
then so is the conjunction,
and if p is F,
then so is the conjunction.
And with this we can write,
p⋀q⋀r⋀…=p⋀p⋀q⋀r⋀…
Or in other words,
R=p⋀R,
which can be written as,
(p ⋀ R) → [(p → R) → (R → p)] ,
where this is just
the Golden Rule
with q replaced by R.
Then since God is the Creator,
He is the Cause of all things.
And this says that
God created the heavens and earth,
thus all things
should glorify God
(
Colossians 1:16).
God will make all things new
(
Rev 21:5).
God is the Alpha and the Omega,
the First and the Last,
the Beginning and the End
(
Rev 22:13).
Or as I write,
the premise on which everything rests
will become evident.
The final theory will explain
how creation began.
The Creator of the universe
will be manifested.
And the cause of all things
will manifest
to such an extent
that there will come
a new creation again.
And for a life prophesied to be
the perfect expression of righteousness,
this principle
would allow us to predict
important events in his life.
He will do good deeds for others.
And what he does to others
will be done to him.
He would heal many
and even raise others from the dead,
therefore,
he will rise from the dead as well.
God will glorify the Son
so that the Son may glorify God
John 17:1).
And he will return to the glory
that he had from the beginning (
John 17:5).
And "this same Jesus,
who has been taken from you
into heaven,
will come back
in the same way
you have seen him go into heaven" (
Acts 1:11).
There is yet another
principle of reason
at work in the world
whose truth is seen
in personal integrity
and prophetic destiny.
I call it the Diamond Rule
because it describes
how destructive or negating forces
work to produce a stronger result.
And this is like
a diamond being constructed
from the destructive forces
of pressure and heat.
For any proposition, p,
it is immediately true that
p = (~p → p) The Diamond Rule
For if p=T,
then it is true that T=(F→T),
and if p=F,
then it is also true that F=(T→F).
And this says that
if some situation is truly the case,
then even to assume that it's not
will prove that it's so.
In the language of argumentation,
this is called reduction to absurdity,
where the fact is proved
by assuming the opposite,
and when the opposite
results in absurd consequences,
then the negation of the opposite
must be true.
In other words,
the fact itself is proven true.
For example,
if a man were accused of a crime
at location A,
but he was identified at work
200 miles away
one hour later,
then it could be argued
that if he did commit the crime
at location A,
he would have had to travel
200 miles an hour
to be seen at work.
But since it's absurd to think
that cars travel that fast,
he must not have committed the crime.
And this principle
is also described
by physical situations
of stable equilibrium,
like a ball at the bottom
of a bowl.
If the ball is not
at the bottom of the bowl,
then gravity will exert a force
that will cause it to move
towards the bottom of the bowl.
This principle is also at work
in the following verses:
There is nothing hidden
that will not be revealed
(
Mt 10:26).
A city on a hill
cannot remain hidden
(
Mt 5:14).
Go into your room,
close the door and pray.
Then your Father,
who sees what is done in secret
will reward you
(
Mt 6:6).
Whoever humbles himself
will be exalted (
Mt 23:12).
Repentance leads
to the knowledge of the truth (
2 Timothy 2:25).
Weeping may stay for the night.
But joy comes in the morning (
Psalm 30:5).
If a seed falls to the ground and dies,
it will produce many seeds (
John 12:24).
If you believe in Christ,
then even though you die,
yet shall you live (
John 11:25).
Whoever loses his life for Christ
will find it
(
Mt 10:39).
And as I might write:
if your way of life
does not produce death,
then even your death
will cause you to live.
And all this
strengthens personal integrity
because it represents a process
of correcting yourself,
whether you're correcting
your personal beliefs
or your physical abilities
or your intellectual pursuits.
You must admit you are ignorant
before you learn.
You must be willing to work
to reach a goal.
You must be able
to admit you are wrong
before you become known as honest.
And in the realm
of predicting the future
of great prophets
and the ultimate fate of the world,
this principle would say
that there will come
a tribulation before the resurrection.
There will come an antichrist
before the coming of Jesus Christ.
The present heavens and earth
will fade away
before the coming
of the new heaven and earth.
For you cannot have
the former after the latter.
And this principle
is obviously at work
in the life of Christ.
For if someone's life
were to represent the truth,
then even the opposite
must prove that it is.
His death must result
in his resurrection.
That person
must rise from the dead
to prove that he lives
to bear witness to the truth.
His virtue is proven
by his willingness to suffer
for his cause.
His glory is proven
when he endured the shame.
Of course,
it's possible to also write,
~q=(q→~q),
by simply replacing p with ~q
in the previous formula.
And this would be interpreted
by verses such as,
no one lights a lamp
and puts it under a bed (
Mt 5:15).
If salt loses its saltiness,
it is thrown out (
Mt 5:13).
Whoever finds his life will lose it (
Mt 10:39).
Whoever exalts himself
will be humbled (
Mt 23:12).
Or as I might write,
if the fact that it is
should prove that it's not,
then it is completely proven wrong.
where one seeks
to acquire immediate glory
only to lose it in time
and then experience
feelings of shame and regret.
They risks anger and revenge
for temporal pleasures,
and it leaves them feeling guilty
with expectations
of a harsh judgment to come.
The objection to all this
is usually that
people are not propositions.
Right and wrong
are not as clearly distinguishable
as true and false.
No one always does
only what is right,
nor does anyone always do
only what is wrong.
We are human,
and we sometimes do our best,
and we are bound to make mistakes.
People can change,
and we have free will
to behave as arbitrarily as we like.
So how can you base a judgment
on something as arbitrary as that?
It is not rocks and trees
that state what is true or false,
but it is we humans
that make statements
by our words and our deeds.
We act on choices we make
based on our belief
of what the events in our life mean.
Here we are
staring at our own mortality.
This life and all we obverse
is the only evidence we have.
If we have any faculty of reason,
then this life too
must form the bases of a decision
to be made.
What is to come
from all of this?
Is this all there is?
Or do we put our faith in reason
and trust that
the principle of cause and effect
will carry us to a continued state
of ultimate consequences?
What then could those consequences be?
If you think this life
is all there is,
then you are living for
momentary honor and pleasures.
You are denying
that premises have continued consequences.
And you are acting to negate
any honor you might have
in the ultimate future.
But if there is a final judgment
that determines your fate,
then you will be declared false
and denied continued wellbeing.
But if you are wise
and believe that
there are always consequences
to be experienced,
then you will use this life
to prepare
for the ultimate judgment
in the future.
You will work to understand
and increase your faith.
And even if it takes
some momentary sacrifice,
you will work to honor what's right.
And when the final judgment
is revealed,
your righteousness
will be declared as true,
and continued wellbeing will be your fate.
Because our time on this earth
comes to an end,
we consider the meaning and purpose
of our lives
as if it were a single proposition
to be considered.
And because we think of our lives
in general terms
as a single premise,
there are consequences
we expect based on it.
Because we know we can die
we are forced to face
the final judgment of it
like any other statement
we might consider.
And like any other statement,
it can only be judged
as true or false,
right or wrong,
as either good or bad.
So it is reasonable
to expect a heavenly state
for those who are judged as right
and a horrible state
for those who are judged as wrong.