Glossary

  • Abstraction: An abstraction is a concept, idea, theory, etc. rather than a concrete part of reality.
  • Affirm: To affirm is to assert as true.
  • Antecedent: An antecedent is a thing or event that logically or chronologically precedes another thing or event.
  • Argument: A logical argument is reasoning consisting of one or more premises plus a conclusion. The argument can be inductive or deductive. In logic, it is not a disagreement or a verbal fight, although. A logical argument is not a disagreement but the reasoning by which something can be known.
  • Categorical Proposition: A categorical proposition is a proposition that asserts/denies that some/all members of one class are included in another class.
  • Categorical Syllogism: A categorical syllogism is syllogism in which a conclusion follows from a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise).
  • Class: A class, in logic, is a category of things having one or more properties or attributes in common by which it can be shown to be different from other classes. Sometimes, a class is called a “set.”
  • Cogency: Cogency is persuasiveness, which is not necessarily the same as being rational. A person who is cogent is persuasive.
  • Comparative: A comparative is a statement that compares two or more things.
  • Complement: A complement is a predicate noun or completer. It completes the verb. An intransitive verb must be followed by a noun or noun phrase (the complement) to complete the meaning of the sentence.
  • Conclusion: A conclusion is a claim that is made. Generally, it is said to be true because of some proof (premises).
  • Conditional: A conditional is an if-then statement. If A is true, then B is true.
  • Conditional Syllogism: A conditional syllogism is a syllogism that is based on at least one conditional (if-then) statement.
  • Conjunction: A logical conjunction is reasoning regarding two propositions that results in a truth-value of true if both of its operands (proposition statements) are true. Otherwise, the truth-value is false.
  • Conjuctive Syllogism: A conjunctive syllogism is a syllogism in which both options are true.
  • Consequence: The consequence is the effect or result of an action or condition.
  • Consequent: The consequent is the effect or result of an action or condition.
  • Consistency: Consistency is reasoning without inner conflict. Premises do not conflict with each other. The conclusion does not conflict with the premises but rather is supported (proved) by it.
  • Contingent Proposition: A contingent proposition is neither true nor false in itself, but it’s truth-value is dependent on some condition.
  • Contradiction: A contradiction is a situation in which two things are mutually exclusive, that is, one or both must be false.
  • Contradictory Propositions: Contradictory propositions are propositions that are mutually exclusive, that is, one or both must be false. At most, only one can be true.
  • Contraposition: Contraposition is the conversion of a statement from all X is Z to all not-X is not-Z.
  • Contrary Propositions: Contrary propositions are propositions that cannot all be true at the same time in the same way.
  • Conversion: Conversion is the act of swapping the subject and the predicate.
  • Correlative: A correlative is a statement or concept that has a mutual relationship with another statement or concept.
  • Counterexample: A counterexample is something that shows a proposed conclusion to be false. It is an example the runs counter to the conclusion.
  • Dangling Comparative: A dangling comparative is a comparison between two things in which one of the things is missing.
  • Deduction: Deduction is a type of reasoning that has true premises, valid form, a conclusion that derives its truth from the premises, and a true conclusion. If any of these is not met, the reasoning is not sound. The premises cannot have any dependencies on the unknown. The conclusion must not add anything to the premises or ignore any conflicting ramification of the premises.
  • Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning is reasoning that has true premises, valid form, a conclusion that derives its truth from the premises, and a true conclusion. If any of these is not met, the reasoning is not sound. The premises cannot have any dependencies on the unknown. The conclusion must not add anything to the premises or ignore any conflicting ramification of the premises.
  • Default: A default is a proposition that is claimed to be true unless it is shown to be false. The claim of a default is generally associated with an argument from ignorance fallacy.
  • Defeasible Position: A defeasible proposition is one that is open to correction. Sometimes, the word, “defeasible,” is used when the word, “default,” is meant, and an argument from ignorance fallacy is being committed.
  • Deny: To deny is to assert as not true.
  • Determinism: Determinism is the view that all events are caused by something. It has to do with the Law of Cause and Effect. The Law of Cause and Effect is necessary for scientific method.
  • Definiendum: Definiendum is the word, concept, phrase, etc. that is being defined.
  • Definiens: Definiens are the statements that define the definiendum (what is being defined).
  • Dilemma: A dilemma is a situation in which there are two mutually exclusive choices, both of which are undesirable. Sometimes, the word is used to indicate two choices whether they are desirable or not. A dilemma consists of two hypothetical syllogisms plus a disjunction.
  • Disjunction: A disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives.
  • Disjunctive Syllogism: A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism in which a choice is given between two mutually exclusive options where one option must be true and the other false.
  • Distributed: A term is distributed in a categorical proposition when it refers to all the members of a class. This is done by either stating or implying “all,” as in, “All cats are animals.”
  • Empirical: Empirical is that which is derived by experience, for instance, direct observation or experimentation.
  • Epichereme: An epichereme is a syllogism in which a proof is joined to one or both of the premises. The proof is often expressed by a casual clause. The premise to which a proof is annexed is an enthymeme.
  • Epistemology: Epistemology is the study of how you can know about things.
  • Enthymeme: An enthymeme is an abbreviated categorical syllogism. One of its premises and/or its conclusion is not expressed.
  • Exclusive Or: An exclusive “or” indicates that two things are mutually exclusive. If one is true, then the other must be false. The word, “or,” can also mean “this and/or that.” This is an inclusive or. Both this and that could be true at once.
  • Extension: Extension is the reality to which a word, phrase, statement, etc. correspond. Extension is compared to intension. Intension is concerned with worldviews (beliefs and mental states): wants, thinks, hopes, fears, assumes, etc. regarding reality.
  • Faith: Faith comes by hearing (acknowledging) and hearing comes by the word (Greek: rhema, which means “utterance”) of God. It is the gift of God lest anyone should boast. When God leads, He provides the power to believe what He says. Anyone who really wants to do the will of God will know the difference between that which comes from God and that which does not. God will see to it. This faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. The word, “substance,” used here, means that which is real, that which is concrete. Faith proceeds from God speaking. As the Secularist Fallacy requires, without God speaking, without Divine revelation, no one can know anything. The only way to get to anything of substance is via faith.
  • Fallacy: Fallacy (in this book) is any method, tactic, statement, etc. by which the distinction between reality and make-believe is blurred. These are the methods of deception.
  • Falsification: In scientific method, falsification is the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory. A proposition, hypothesis, or theory is said to be falsifiable if a method of falsification can be conceived. If, once that method of falsification is met, the goalposts are moved and ad hoc hypotheses are developed to get around the method of falsification, the so-called hypothesis/theory is not falsifiable. Theories about the unobservable past, for instance, are not falsifiable, because it is always possible to make up an ad hoc hypothesis to rescue the theory.
  • Form: The pattern of the reasoning is the form of the reasoning. The form is separate from the premises and the conclusion and is the way that the premises and conclusion are put together in a relationship using language.
  • Formal Fallacy: A fallacy of form is known as a formal fallacy. When there is a formal fallacy, the form, the way the reasoning is structured, prevents the logic from being sound. Just because reasoning follows the correct form does not mean that the conclusion is true. Just because the reasoning follows incorrect form does not mean that the conclusion is untrue.
  • Grace: Grace is the only means by which any person can ever do any good works. It is faith that gives access to grace, and faith only comes by an utterance of God, that is, God must be leading and the person receiving faith must be in submission to the Holy Spirit, allowing the Holy Spirit to do His works through the person. Some people define grace as forgiveness. Some people define grace as good manners. Some people define grace as mercy. None of these are Biblical definitions of grace. Grace is so much more than these other definitions of grace.
  • Generalization: A generalization is a statement about a class rather than about an individual.
  • Heart: The Greek, “kardia,” means “the innermost being.” The Hebrew, “leb,” means “mind,” “will,” or “understanding.” As the heart of the body sends blood with all that sustains life, the heart of the mind, the innermost mind, sends that which is needed to sustain the mind. The words, “reins,” and “conscience” are also translated from words that mean “innermost mind.” Out of the heart are the issues of life. Proverbs 4:23
  • Hypostatize: To hypostatize is to regard or treat a concept or idea as a distinct substance or reality. A hypostatization is a concept or idea that is thought to be a distinct substance or reality. Hypostatizations are never part of reality. They are always concepts.
  • Hypostatization: A hypostatization is something that is merely a concept or idea, but it is thought of, and treated, as part of reality.
  • Hypothesis: An explanation is proposed based on limited evidence. Hypotheses are not supposed to conflict with any known facts, but they usually do. When they conflict with known facts, an ad hoc hypothesis is usually proposed to explain away the facts. In any case, a hypothesis is just a story. It cannot rationally be taken as fact. Note that it is very important not to confuse an explanation (hypothesis or theory) with proof. This confusion is exactly what has happened in the mind of some scientists, causing dogmatism and destroying the peer-review process of science. A similar problem is actively happening in theological circles.
  • Hypothetical Syllogism: A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism which has a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. “If X, then Y.”
  • Inclusive Or: An Inclusive “or” indicates that two things are not mutually exclusive. If one is true, then the other may be either true or false. The word, “or,” can also be exclusive, so that if one is true, the other must be false. One problem in logic occurs when the meaning of “or” switches in the course of reasoning.
  • Immediate Inference: Reasoning using a single premise. “Since I know Jesus personally, I know that He exists.”
  • Inconsistency: Inconsistency is a contradiction in reasoning. Inconsistency can be internal (contradiction within the thoughts) or external (contradiction between the thoughts and the external reality.)
  • Induction: Induction is a method of reasoning (inductive reasoning) that purports to show a percentage of probability for a simple situation. Calculating the percentage of probability become impossible as more variables come to light or when it is necessary to make one or more assumptions.
  • Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is not a fallacy, but considering it to yield conclusive inferences is a fallacy. It is a fallacy to use an inductive conclusion as a premise for a deductive argument. The entire deductive argument then becomes as weak as the weakest link, the assumption (s). Assumptions have no truth value. (see induction)
  • Intension: Intension is concerned with worldviews (beliefs and mental states): wants, thoughts, hopes, fears, assumptions, and such regarding reality. Intension is compared to extension. Extension is the reality to which a thought, word, phrase, statement, or anything like that corresponds.
  • Intensional Context: The intensional context is concerned with worldviews (beliefs and mental states): wants, thoughts, hopes, fears, assumes, etc. The intensional context is compared to the extensional context, which has to do with the set of all past, present, future, spiritual, physical states of a person, place, or thing. There is a difference between worldview (the intensional context) and reality (the extensional context). The extensional context is the context of the person, place, or thing that is designated. The intensional context is the inner worldview and resulting inner mental states regarding the person, place, or thing. The inner worldview and associated inner mental states regarding the persons, places, and things are called intensions. The persons, places, or things themselves, the external realities, are called extensions. The intensional properties are bogus properties. They exist only in the worldview or the conceptualization. Related: intentional fallacy, hooded man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Inverse: The inverse is something that is the opposite or reverse of some other thing.
  • Law of Cause and Effect: Every effect must have a cause. Everything happens for a reason. Every law of nature must have a cause. The regularity of nature must have a cause. The Universe must have a cause. The existence of matter must have a cause. Information must have a cause.
  • Leibniz’s Law: If two things (people, organizations, entities, etc.) are identical, all of their attributes will be identical. Generally, for two things to be identical, they must be the same thing. Ravi Zacharias is identical to Ravi Zacharias even when he is called something else. To his daughter, Daddy is identical to Ravi Zacharias. This law is violated when two identical things are claimed to be different from each other. It is also violated when two things that are not identical are said to be identical. Related: intentional fallacy, hooded man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, ontic fallacy, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Logic: Logic takes known facts and restates them as a conclusion. It notes that the two facts necessarily mean that the conclusion is true. The conclusion cannot rationally manufacture new information, in this case, necessity. It has no authority to filter out any implications of the premises either.
  • Local Argument: A piece of reasoning, whether rational or not.
  • Major Premise: The major premise is the premise (statement of fact) that contains the major term (the predicate of the conclusion). It is the general statement.
  • Minor Premise: The minor premise is the premise (statement of fact) that contains the minor term (the subject of the conclusion). It is the specific statement.
  • Major Term: The major term is the predicate of the conclusion.
  • Minor Term: The minor term is the subject of the conclusion.
  • Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism: A mixed hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism where one premise is conditional and one premise affirms or denies either the antecedent or consequent of that conditional statement.
  • Modal Attitude: The modal attitude is the assessment of a statement, proposition, conclusion, etc. Note the difference between modality of these statements: “X does not exist.” “I don’t believe that X exists.” “It is possible that X exists.” “There is a 22.35 percent chance that X exists.
  • Modal Logic: Modal logic is a type of logic that includes modal operators, language that expresses modal attitudes such as necessity, possibility, belief, or knowledge.
  • Modal Operator of Necessity: A modal operator of necessity is language that sets an attitude that asserts that it is necessary that a certain condition exists.
  • Modal Operator: A modal operator is language that sets a modal attitude.
  • Model: A model is a representation of certain parts of a reality, abstracting these parts of reality in order to try to understand the abstracted parts. A common problem in thinking is to confuse the model with reality itself. Since it is an abstraction, it cannot be reality itself. It is simply a tool for thinking about reality. The process of abstraction introduces distortion of reality.
  • Narrow Scope: A term with a narrow scope modifies a smaller part of the sentence, as opposed to wide scope where it would modify a larger part or all of the sentence.
  • Necessity: Necessity is a condition in which something is necessarily in a certain state, such as necessarily true, necessarily false, necessarily unknown, etc.
  • Negation: Negation is asserting the falsity of something, that is, declaring something to be false.
  • Obversion: Obversion is the act of swapping the predicate with its complement.
  • Ontology: Ontology is the study of empirical knowledge, that is, raw perceptions. One of the problems is that raw perceptions are not experienced directly but are filtered by the worldview.
  • Particular Affirmative: A particular affirmative is a statement that asserts that something is true of some members of a class.
  • Particular Negative: A particular negative is a statement that asserts that something is false for some members of a class.
  • Perfect Syllogisms: Perfect syllogisms are syllogisms that are self-evidently or obviously valid. Another way to say this is that perfect syllogisms are syllogisms where it is obvious that the conclusion follows from the premises if the premises are true. This doesn’t mean that the premises are true, that the conclusion is true, or that the argument is sound.
  • Prima Facia: Based on a first impression, assuming something to be true until proved otherwise. This is a form of argument from ignorance fallacy.
  • Predicate: The predicate is the part of a statement that says something about the subject.
  • Predicate Noun: A predicate noun is a completer, or complement. It completes the verb. An intransitive verb must be followed by a noun or noun phrase to complete the meaning of the sentence.
  • Premise: The premise (could be more than one) is the reason to believe that the conclusion is true. Premises must be proven by evidence that can stand on its own without assumption, infinite regression, or some other fallacy.
  • Premises: The premises are the reasons (plural) to believe that the conclusion is true. Premises must be proven by evidence that can stand on its own without assumption, infinite regression., or some other fallacy.
  • Presume: The act of assuming something true (or false) in the absence of further information. It is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The alternative is to admit ignorance.
  • Presumptive: That which is presumed.
  • Probability: The probability is the numerical percentage of likelihood of something being true or false. Phantom probability is a known problem, where probability is talked about but there is no way to calculate probability.
  • Proposition: A proposition is a statement that expresses an opinion.
  • Quantifiers: Quantifiers are words such as “all,” “none,” “many,” or “some.”
  • Rational: “Rational” means sane, dealing with reality as it really is. The word, “rationalize,” means to attempt to make the irrational seem rational or to try to make the insane seem sane. The word, “rationalism,” refers to a philosophy that claims that the human mind can manufacture knowledge without the benefit of either observation or Divine revelation.
  • Rationalization: A rationalization is an attempt to make that which is not rational appear to be rational.
  • Rationalism: Rationalism is a philosophy that claims that the human mind is capable of manufacturing truth without the benefit of either observation or Divine revelation.
  • Rhema: Rhema is a Greek word, meaning “utterance.”
  • Salva Veritate: Salva Veritate is Latin for “saving truth” and refers to the necessary conditions for a valid argument.
  • Scoffer: A scoffer is one who scoffs, that is, is treats others in scornful or derisive ways. A scoffer of the Bible or those who serve Christ is not open-minded to Christ. The scoffer is in bondage, trapped by Satan. If the scoffers were to be honest about their claims that there are errors in Scripture, then they would tell us that their real purpose is to give their own minds the same status as Scripture. They really want their own rationalized and spiritualized supposition to have the same validity as Scripture. In reality, they do not want to surrender themselves to their God. They do not want to submit to God’s loving authority. They want independence from God.
  • Scope: A term with a narrow scope modifies a smaller part of the sentence, as opposed to wide scope where is would modify a larger part or all of the sentence.
  • Second Law of Thermodynamics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always degrade to a lower state of useable energy and lower level of organization. There are several ways to state the Second Law of Thermodynamics: the disorder of the Universe tends towards a maximum level of disorder. Energy potential is constantly decreasing. Information decreases over time. Orderly systems become more disorderly over time. Randomness does not organize itself. Since the Universe is a closed system, everything in the Universe is subject to the Second Law.

To say that there are exceptions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrational because there is no example of that. Seeds growing into plants and other living things developing from embryos are not exceptions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These increases in complexity and order are the equivalent of a group of workers using machinery and a plan to build a house. It is the same process as building a car in a factory. A plan is needed, which is provided in the DNA. A mechanism is needed, which is provided in the amazingly intricate factory that we call “a cell.” Evolutionists claim that molecules-to-man is a violation of the Second Law, as Bill Nye tries to imply that the Sun adding energy somehow creates exceptions to the Second Law. Crystals and snowflakes are not exceptions to the Second Law. The Second Law applies to the idea that natural processes will result in things moving toward the most probably arrangement of matter and energy. The most probable arrangement is always the greatest disorder. Crystals and snowflakes are examples of matter moving toward the most probable arrangement because of magnetic polarity at the molecular level. DNA and the information systems that are in living things are not examples of things moving to the most probable arrangement. They are examples of moving away from the most probable arrangement. Order can be forced to arise by building constraints into a system. Machines, such as refrigerators, air conditioners, assembly robots in factories, and nailing guns in skilled hands of workers all reverse the effects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in one part of the overall system, while borrowing energy and order from the rest of the system. They do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than seeds growing into plants violate the Second Law. Whenever order increases in one part of an overall system, the rest of the system moves toward greater disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is merely a documentation this reality. The Second Law doesn’t prevent order that can be created by applying a mechanism for creating order.

Evolutionists will often make a false analogy between seed-to-plant observations and molecules-to-man stories. Living systems have not found a way around the Second Law. There are no ways around it. Order can be forced to arise by the right mechanisms, which act as constraints. In the case of seed-to-plant or embryo-to-adult, living things have mechanisms. They have information systems to control those mechanisms that force matter to be orderly despite the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This doesn’t overcome or violate the Second Law. Even with these programs and mechanisms bringing about order in the living thing or in the house being built, the process of creating order creates an equal amount of disorder in the surrounding system, so the Second Law continues to work toward overall disorder while living things continue to enforce internal order and to order the world around themselves by building nests, houses, and such.

You can apply the Second Law strictly to the overall Universe, since that is a closed system. The overall system must wind down. Nothing can reverse that except something outside the system. The Universe has no mechanism to wind itself back up. That means that, given enough time, the Universe would be at what is called thermodynamic equilibrium. If it always existed, there would not be any planets or stars. There would be equally disbursed heat, very close to absolute zero. There would also be no way that what we see could arise by itself in such a system. There would be no mechanism to cause matter to form. This is why no one has been able to even formulate a possible mechanism that would cause matter to form from nothing. None of the stories work, including the Big Bang story. (Video Explanation of the Second Law)

  • Secularist Trilemma / Münchhausen Trilemma / Agrippa’s Trilemma / Albert’s Trilemma: The Naturalistic assumption/axiom becomes the basis of thought, which results in a false trilemma that nothing can be known since everything resolves to unsupported assertion or two ways to hide unsupported assertion. It is a false trilemma because there are actually five choices. Therefore, it doesn’t mean that nothing can be known. It means that under the Secularistsassumption of Naturalism the Secularist is unable to distinguish between what can be known and what cannot be known. This causes confusion in thinking. It only affects those who assume Naturalism, who are stuck with three choices for thinking. Every conclusion they make must be based on one of three fallacies. These three choices, infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking resolve to the singular fallacy of axiomatic thinking with the other two being smokescreens to coverError! Bookmark not defined. the fact that everything is based on “Because I said so, that’s why.” The other two available choices violate Naturalism, so they are rejected out of hand by phantom absurdity, summary dismissal, false declaration of victory, etc., by those who prefer Naturalism. Those two choices are Divine revelation and demonic influence. Interestingly, both of those two choices are the basis of what Secularists deem to be axiomatic thinking fallacies. God is the source of all knowledge. Satan is the father of all lies. Therefore, Secularists can know true things by Divine revelationError! Bookmark not defined., but since they refuse to give God glory for it, they can’t tell the difference between Divine revelationError! Bookmark not defined. and demonic influence. Functionally, therefore, they don’t know anything. In reality, they do know some things, which is why they can do science. History: This Trilemma has probably always been known. The oldest available writing was by Agrippa about 2,000 years ago, so it is known as Agrippa’s Trilemma. In the 1700s, Baron Münchhausen brought it up, so it is also known as the Münchhausen Trilemma. In the 1900s, a German philosopher, Hans Albert, wrote about it, so it is also called Albert’s Trilemma. It is a Secularist Trilemma to be sure.
  • Seeking Christ: Everyone who seeks Christ finds Christ. If you come to Him in sincerity, persistence, humility, and, most importantly, submission, He will reveal Himself to you. You must confess the fact that you have sinned, that you have not done the things He has led you to do, and that you have disobeyed His commandments. Express your sorrow at this, and commit to obedience to Him from here forward. Ask Him to pardon your sins of the past and to remove your sinful nature from you. Now, if you do this, keep in mind that you can’t fool Him. He is your creator and knows you better than you know yourself. If you do this, He will reveal Himself to you and forgive you your sins. Your fleshly nature will be incrementally taken away as you follow His leading day by day and moment by moment. You will also gradually gain discernment to hear His Voice more clearly and to know the difference between make-believe and reality.
  • Set: A set, in logic, is a category (class) of things having one or more properties or attributes in common by which it can be shown to be different from other sets (classes).
  • Sin: The word, “sin,” is often translated from a word that means straying from the way/path. Sin is missing the strait (that is, constrained) and narrow Way/Path. This is the narrow Way that leads to eternal Life. Jesus is the Way, and Jesus is the Life, so Jesus is both the Way to reach the Goal, but Jesus is also the Goal. The word, “sin,” is often translated from two other words: one meaning “to step across” and the other meaning “to slip across.” That means that we can slip off the Way that leads to Life or we can step off on purpose. Sin is slavery to Satan. Sin is whatever is not of faith. All good works are by grace through faith. Therefore, anything that you do by your own will and power is sin. Therefore, anything that God did not ask you to think, say, or do is sin. Therefore, anything that God did not think, say, or do within you is sin. Everything that doesn’t originate from God is sin. Sin is a lack of God. God is love. Sin is a lack of love. Sin is the transgression of the Law. The Law is spiritual. Love fulfills the Law. The Law can be summed up as follows: The most important commandment is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.” Failure to fulfill the most important commandment is the worst sin, and it is the very thing that makes it impossible to fulfill the second most important commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” God is Love. There is no Love without God. Sin is the lack of righteousness. Only God can do righteousness, and humanity can only do righteousness when humanity is reconciled to God. In fact, Jesus Christ is our righteousness. Sin is falling short of the glory of God, the glory that God planned for you. It is sin to ignore God’s good plan for you to attain to His glory. Sin is rebellion against God. Sin is a desire to NOT commune with God. Sin is a desire to NOT glorify and respect God and NOT hold Him in holy reverence. Sin is a desire to add to and take away from God’s Word and to follow your own mind and will, which leads to spiritual death and is the cause of physical misery, sickness, and death. Pride is a lack of humility, and that is sin. Sin is the reason for death and suffering.
  • Sorites: A sorites is a series of premises (incomplete syllogisms) where the predicate of each incomplete syllogism’s premise is the subject of the next. The conclusion consists of the subject of the first premise being joined with the predicate of the last premise.
  • Sound: Reasoning that has true premises, valid form, and a true conclusion is said to be sound.
  • Soundness: The soundness of reasoning is based on having true premises, valid form, and a true conclusion.
  • Sound Reasoning: Reasoning that has true premises, valid form, and a true conclusion is said to be sound.
  • Subject: The subject is the person, place, or thing (noun) that is being dealt with or discussed.
  • Subset: A subset is a set within a set, a distinct part of the larger set. It is a class within a class.
  • Syllogism: A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning, a series of statements in which premises lead to a conclusion.
  • Theory: A theory is an explanation that is proposed based on limited evidence. Theories are not supposed to conflict with any known facts, but they usually do. When they conflict with known facts, an ad hoc hypothesis is usually proposed to explain away the facts. In any case, a theory is just a story. It cannot rationally be taken as fact. A story is made-up to fit the observations as much as possible, but somehow the fact that the story is just a story may be forgotten, and too much weight is given to the story. It is irrational to speak of evidence for a theory, since the scientific observations can conflict with a theory, but they cannot prove a theory. The word, “evidence,” implies proof. True scientific theories are made-up stories that fit the facts perfectly, but fitting the facts doesn’t assure that the made-up stories are true. The ability of the human mind to make up stories seems to be endless. Many made-up stories (e.g. big bang, billions of years, molecules to man) about the past are called “theories” when they aren’t even good hypotheses, because they require ad hoc hypothesis transfusions to keep them alive. In fact, most made-up stories are made up to fit the facts, at least to the point of making the made-up stories believable. The most that a theory can be is an explanation. It never can prove that the story actually happened.
  • Token: A token is an example, in reality, of a type (the concept of a token).
  • Truth: Truth is reality.
  • Truth-Value: Truth-value is the evaluation of a statement or argument as being either true or false. If a statement is partly true and partly false, then it contains statements, each of which is either true or false.
  • Type: A type is a concept of something that exists in reality.
  • Universal Affirmative: A universal affirmative is a statement that asserts that something is true of all members of a class.
  • Universal Negative: A universal affirmative is a statement that asserts that something is not true of all members of a class.
  • Valid: Reasoning is said to be valid when it has a form that assures that the conclusion is true if the premises are true.
  • Validity: Validity is the evaluation of the form of the reasoning as to whether or not it assures that the conclusion will be true if the premises are true.
  • Valid Logical Form: Valid form is a structure of reasoning that is able to come to a true conclusion if the premises are true, but only providing that the premises are true and the conclusion follows from those premises.
  • Wide Scope: A term with a wider scope would modify a larger part or all of the sentence, as opposed to narrower scope, which modifies a smaller part of the sentence.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *