#22-Formalization

August 28, 2025

➘ #22 Source Article

Symbolic Logic Formalization

$\forall x (Rational(x) \to Belief(x) \propto Evidence(x))$
Annotation: For any entity $x$ , if $x$ is rational, then the degree of $Belief(x)$ must be proportional to the degree of $Evidence(x)]$ . Rationality requires beliefs to scale with evidential support.

$\exists y (Faith(y) \to Belief(y) > Evidence(y))$
Annotation: There exists some $y$ such that if $y$ holds faith, then $Belief(y)]$ exceeds $Evidence(y)]$ . Faith is defined as overbelief—belief stronger than what evidence justifies.

$Rational(God) \wedge Commands(God, Faith) \to \bot$
Annotation: If $God$ is rational yet commands faith, a contradiction arises. A rational being cannot coherently demand belief that surpasses evidence.

$\forall x (Faith(x) \to Obedience(x) \wedge \neg Inquiry(x))$
Annotation: For any $x$ , if $x$ adopts faith, then $x$ is disposed toward $Obedience(x)]$ and away from $Inquiry(x)]$ . Faith functions as a mechanism of submission rather than rational investigation.

$Benevolent(God) \to \forall p (Person(p) \to Accessible(Salvation, p))$
Annotation: If $God$ is benevolent, then for every $Person(p)]$ , salvation must be accessible to $p]$ . A universally benevolent deity would not arbitrarily restrict access.

$\exists q (Person(q) \wedge \neg Accessible(Salvation, q))$
Annotation: There exists some $q$ such that $q$ is a person and salvation is not accessible to $q]$ . This reflects the exclusivist doctrine that denies salvation to many.

$Benevolent(God) \wedge Exclusivity \to \bot$
Annotation: If $God$ is benevolent, but salvation is exclusive, a contradiction follows. Benevolence is incompatible with exclusion of many from salvation.

$\forall x (Test(Faith(x)) \to Loyalty(x) \wedge \neg Rational(x))$
Annotation: For any $x]$ , if $Faith(x)]$ is required as a test, then it demonstrates $Loyalty(x)]$ but also entails $\neg Rational(x)]$ . Loyalty through faith comes at the cost of rationality.

$Rational(God) \to \neg Commands(God, \neg Rational(x))$
Annotation: If $God]$ is rational, then $God]$ cannot command irrational belief. To do so would undermine divine rationality.

$\forall c, p (c \neq p \to E[BS(c)] - E[BS(p)] = (c - p)^2 > 0)$
Annotation: For any credence $c]$ and evidential probability $p]$ , if $c]$ does not equal $p]$ , then the expected Brier score $E[BS(c)]$ is worse than $E[BS(p)]$ by $(c - p)^2]$ . Beliefs that depart from evidence are strictly less accurate.

$EU(Belief) = \sum_i P(H_i) \times Payoff(H_i) - Cost(Error)$
Annotation: The expected utility $EU]$ of holding a belief equals the weighted sum of possible payoffs under hypotheses $H_i]$ , discounted by the costs of error. Properly calibrated belief maximizes expected outcomes.

$Belief(x) > P(x) \Rightarrow EU(Belief) < EU(P)]$
Annotation: If $Belief(x)]$ is greater than the evidential probability $P(x)]$ , then the expected utility of believing is lower than the expected utility of proportioning belief to $P]$ . Overbelief yields predictable practical disadvantage.

$H_H : \text{The Bible is primarily a human-authored text}$
Annotation: Hypothesis $H_H]$ asserts that the Bible originates chiefly from human authors.

$H_D : \text{The Bible is divinely authored or directly guided by God}$
Annotation: Hypothesis $H_D]$ asserts that the Bible is authored or directly guided by a rational God.

$E : \text{Observed valorization of belief beyond evidence}$
Annotation: Evidence $E]$ is the recurring biblical promotion of belief that exceeds evidential support.

$LR = \frac{P(E \mid H_H)}{P(E \mid H_D)}$
Annotation: The likelihood ratio $LR]$ measures how much more expected the evidence $E]$ is under human authorship $H_H]$ versus divine authorship $H_D]$ .

Illustration: If $P(E \mid H_H) = 0.8]$ and $P(E \mid H_D) = 0.1]$ , then $LR = 8]$ .
Annotation: The evidence is eight times more likely under human authorship than divine authorship, favoring $H_H]$ over $H_D]$ .

Final Conclusion:

$(Rational(God) \wedge Benevolent(God)) \to (\neg Commands(God, Faith))$
Annotation: If $God]$ is both rational and benevolent, then $God]$ would not endorse faith understood as belief beyond evidence, since such endorsement leads to contradiction, diminishes accuracy, and predictably worsens human decision-making outcomes.

A Fitch-Style Proof.

∀x (Rational(x) → Belief(x) ∝ Evidence(x)) Premise
Annotation: Rationality requires beliefs to be proportional to evidence.
∃y (Faith(y) → Belief(y) > Evidence(y)) Premise
Annotation: Faith entails overbelief, i.e., belief exceeding evidential warrant.
Rational(God) Assumption
Annotation: Assume God is rational.
Commands(God, Faith) Assumption (for conditional proof)
Annotation: Assume God commands faith.
Faith(y) → Belief(y) > Evidence(y) From (2), existential instantiation
Annotation: For some entity y, faith requires belief beyond evidence.
Commands(God, Faith) → Faith(y) From (4), specification
Annotation: If God commands faith, then y is enjoined to hold faith.
Faith(y) From (4) and (6)
Annotation: By assumption, faith is commanded.
Belief(y) > Evidence(y) From (5) and (7)
Annotation: y’s belief exceeds evidence.
Rational(God) → (Belief(y) ∝ Evidence(y)) From (1), universal instantiation
Annotation: If God is rational, commanded belief must track evidence.
Belief(y) ∝ Evidence(y) From (3) and (9)
Annotation: Rationality demands proportional belief.
Belief(y) > Evidence(y) ∧ Belief(y) ∝ Evidence(y) From (8) and (10)
Annotation: Contradiction arises: belief both exceeds and matches evidence.
⊥ From (11)
Annotation: Logical contradiction.
¬(Rational(God) ∧ Commands(God, Faith)) From (3)–(12), conditional proof
Annotation: A rational God cannot coherently command faith.

◉ Final Conclusion:
If God is rational, He cannot command faith understood as belief beyond evidence.

◉ A plain English walkthrough of the Master Proof above.

The first premise states that any rational being forms beliefs in proportion to the evidence. This means if something has strong evidence, belief should be strong, and if evidence is weak, belief should be weak.
The second premise defines faith as belief that goes beyond what the evidence supports. So faith, by definition, is overbelief.
Next, we assume that God is rational. This is a common claim in theology—that God is perfectly rational.
For the sake of testing the argument, we also assume that God commands faith. This is the key assumption we want to explore.
From the definition of faith, we know that if God commands faith, then some person would have to believe more strongly than the evidence allows.
If God commands faith, then such a person is obligated to practice faith, meaning they will hold belief that exceeds evidence.
So, under the assumption, this person indeed believes more than the evidence supports.
But from the first premise, if God is rational, then any belief God commands must be in proportion to the evidence.
Therefore, the belief commanded by God should exactly match the evidence.
Now we face a contradiction: the commanded belief both exceeds the evidence and exactly matches the evidence at the same time.
A contradiction signals that our assumptions cannot all be true together.
Therefore, we conclude that the original assumption—that God is rational and yet commands faith—is impossible. It leads directly to contradiction.

Final Conclusion: If God is rational, He cannot command faith that exceeds evidence. The very definition of faith, combined with rationality, makes such a command incoherent.

◉ Narrative Summary

The core argument begins with the premise that rationality requires beliefs to be proportionate to the evidence. If someone is rational, their confidence in a claim rises or falls in line with how strong or weak the evidence is. Faith, however, is defined in this framework as going beyond evidence—believing more than the evidence justifies. This immediately creates tension: faith departs from the proportionality that rationality demands.

When we assume that God is rational, and at the same time assume that God commands faith, a problem emerges. If God commands faith, then a person who follows this command must hold a belief that exceeds the evidence. Yet if God is rational, then whatever belief God commands must exactly match the evidence. The believer is therefore placed in an impossible position—both required to go beyond evidence and to align strictly with it. This logical clash produces a contradiction.

From this contradiction, the conclusion follows: it cannot be the case that a rational God commands faith. To insist otherwise would mean accepting that rationality both demands proportional belief and permits overbelief simultaneously, which is incoherent. Thus, the narrative outcome is clear—if God is rational, He cannot endorse the kind of faith that exceeds evidence. The very concept of faith, as traditionally promoted in the Bible, is fundamentally incompatible with divine rationality.

Recent posts

✓ Plantinga’s Abandonment of Credence

February 10, 2026

Alvin Plantinga’s “Warrant” isn’t an epistemic upgrade; it’s a design for inaccuracy. My formal proof demonstrates that maximizing the binary status of “knowledge” forces a cognitive system to be less accurate than one simply tracking evidence. We must eliminate “knowledge” as a rigorous concept, replacing it with credencing—the honest pursuit…
✓ The Great Gaslighting Grift

February 1, 2026

This article critiques the stark gap between the New Testament’s unequivocal promises of answered prayer and their empirical failure. It examines the theological “bait-and-switch” where bold pulpit guarantees of supernatural intervention are neutralized by “creative hermeneutics” in small groups, transforming literal promises into unfalsifiable, psychological coping mechanisms through evasive logic…
✓ Theology’s Floating Fortress

January 31, 2026

This article characterizes theology as a “floating fortress”—internally coherent but isolated from empirical reality. It details how specific theological claims regarding prayer, miracles, and scientific facts fail verification tests. The argument posits that theology survives only through evasion tactics like redefinition and metaphor, functioning as a self-contained simulation rather than…
✓ Parsimony and Christianity

January 27, 2026

This post applies parsimony (Occam’s Razor) to evaluate Christian Theism. It contrasts naturalism’s high “inductive density” with the precarious “stack of unverified assumptions” required for Christian belief, such as a disembodied mind and omni-attributes. It argues that ad hoc explanations for divine hiddenness further erode the probability of theistic claims,…
✓ Grounding Ways of Knowing

January 19, 2026

Modern apologists argue that religious belief is a rational map of evidence, likening it to scientific frameworks. However, a deeper analysis reveals a stark contrast. While science adapts to reality through empirical testing and falsifiability, theology insulates belief from contradictory evidence. The theological system absorbs anomalies instead of yielding to…
✓ Childlike Faith

January 19, 2026

This post critiques the concept of “childlike faith” in religion, arguing that it promotes an uncritical acceptance of beliefs without evidence. It highlights that while children naturally trust authority figures, this lack of skepticism can lead to false beliefs. The author emphasizes the importance of cognitive maturity and predictive power…
✓ The Amalekite Infants

January 19, 2026

This analysis examines the agonizing moral conflict presented by the explicit biblical command to slaughter Amalekite infants in 1 Samuel 15:3. Written from a skeptical, moral non-realist perspective, it rigorously deconstructs the various apologetic strategies employed to defend this divine directive as “good.” The post critiques common evasions, such as…
✓ The Evidence-Mapping Illusion

January 17, 2026

Modern Christian apologetics claims faith is based on evidence, but this is contradicted by practices within the faith. Children are encouraged to accept beliefs uncritically, while adults seeking evidence face discouragement. The community rewards conformity over inquiry, using moral obligations to stifle skepticism. Thus, the belief system prioritizes preservation over…
✓ The Divine Judgment Evasion

January 17, 2026

In the realm of Christian apologetics, few topics generate as much palpable discomfort as the Old Testament narratives depicting divinely ordered genocide. While many believers prefer to gloss over these passages, serious apologists feel compelled to defend them. They must reconcile a God described as “perfect love” with a deity…
✓ Answered Prayers?

January 10, 2026

This post examines various conditions Christians often attach to prayer promises, transforming them into unfalsifiable claims. It highlights how these ‘failsafe’ mechanisms protect the belief system from scrutiny, allowing believers to reinterpret prayer outcomes either as successes or failures based on internal states or hidden conditions. This results in a…
✓ Categorical Labels Rarely Reflect Rationality

January 8, 2026

In public discourse, labels such as “atheist,” “agnostic,” and “Christian” often oversimplify complex beliefs, leading to misunderstandings. These tags are low-resolution summaries that hinder rational discussions. Genuine inquiry requires moving beyond labels to assess individual credences and evidence. Understanding belief as a gradient reflects the nuances of thought, promoting clarity…
✓ Why an Intelligible Universe?

January 6, 2026

The featured argument, often employed in Christian apologetics, asserts that the universe’s intelligibility implies a divine mind. However, a meticulous examination reveals logical flaws, such as equivocation on “intelligible,” unsubstantiated jumps from observations to conclusions about authorship, and the failure to consider alternative explanations. Ultimately, while the universe exhibits structure…
✓ How Myths Emerge

January 1, 2026

The piece discusses how historical figures like Jesus and Alexander the Great undergo “legendary inflation,” where narratives evolve into more than mere history, shaped by cultural needs and societal functions. As communities invest meaning in these figures, their stories absorb mythical elements and motifs over time. This phenomenon illustrates how…
✓ Mythical Husk over the Jesus Seed

January 1, 2026

This post argues against extreme views in debates about the historical Jesus, emphasizing the distinction between the theological narrative shaped by scriptural interpretation and the existence of a human core. It maintains that while the Gospels serve theological purposes, they do not negate the likelihood of a historical figure, supported…
✓ The Semantic Creep of Faith

December 19, 2025

Hebrews 11:1 is often misquoted as a clear definition of faith, but its Greek origins reveal ambiguity. Different interpretations exist, leading to confusion in Christian discourse. Faith is described both as assurance and as evidence, contributing to semantic sloppiness. Consequently, discussions about faith lack clarity and rigor, oscillating between certitude…
✓ AI for Christian Apologists

December 18, 2025

This post emphasizes the importance of using AI as a tool for Christian apologetics rather than a replacement for personal discernment. It addresses common concerns among Christians about AI, advocating for its responsible application in improving reasoning, clarity, and theological accuracy. The article outlines various use cases for AI, such…

J on ✓ Theology’s Floating Fortress
Thanks for another interesting piece (as usual). I might add that even the “flying” fortress theologians have tried to build…
Phil Stilwell on ✓ Parsimony and Christianity
Good insights! “William Philosophers” definitely refers to William of Ockham.
J on ✓ Parsimony and Christianity
Given that I read a collection of Russell’s works on religion a few years ago, the reference to the teapot…
J on ✓ Grounding Ways of Knowing
Alright, thanks for the insights. While I’ve read works on ethics and ethical theories (including some of Immanuel Kant’s more…
Phil Stilwell on ✓ Grounding Ways of Knowing
Hi J, I’m a moral non-realist. I hold that there are no legitimate moral obligations since a moral realm has…
J on ✓ Grounding Ways of Knowing
Hi Phil: Apologies if this isn’t really related to skepticism, but I was wondering: What are your thoughts on the…
J on The Mirage of the Cosmic Rulebook:
Has Juan considered the problems with divine command theory and could he address the following?: a.) What makes Christian versions…
Phil Stilwell on The Mirage of the Cosmic Rulebook:
Juan has been blocked. I ran out of both daylight and patience.A debriefing has been added above in the light…
Phil Stilwell on The Mirage of the Cosmic Rulebook:
Check the new formalization section in grey above. Fourty minutes.
J. GonzalezRamos on The Mirage of the Cosmic Rulebook:
Phil, an hour to “get honest” about what exactly? I pointed out the contradiction between your self-identification as a moral…

Phil Stilwell

A Deep Dive into Common Faith-Based Concepts & Claims