Let us take a look at some  simple  statements, in standard English alpha-text  form,  each consisting of  words placed in subject and attribute order, (an attribute always describes some aspect of  the subject). 

(1)    A dog is a faithful animal.

Dog = a subject  (subject = thing talked about)
Faithful = an attribute =  (an aspect or  characteristic of the  subject) 
animal = (by definition the major class to which the dog belongs)

Note the structure of the alpha-text statement. It has a subject, (dog) and an attribute of the subject (a faithful animal). The statement is of the "subject - verb - attribute" structure, (S-V-A).  There is a tendency, on the part of alpha-text users to assume that any statement using the structure: (S-V-A), immediately assigns a normal truth like value to the statement, just because of its appearance.

We will now look at the second statement.

(2)    A unicorn is a fictitious animal.

Unicorn = a subject and is also by definition fictitious.
Fictitious = an attribute of the subject. 
animal = (by definition the major class to which the unicorn belongs)

 This appears to be a standard alpha-text statement of the "S-V-A" structure

The selection of my third statement may seem argumentative but, having become a  post modern free-thinker I am no longer bound by my previous  belief system that restricted the types of questions that I was taught not to ask. I was raised in a Christian environment therefore when it comes to challenging my childhood beliefs it is my Christian beliefs that I challenge. 

So I will apply our alpha-text logic to some of my early childhood Christian beliefs.

(3)    God is the first cause.

(Statement from the causal argument: see below)

God = the subject
The "first cause" = an attribute of God, but the "first cause" is another definition of God.

 This statement appears to be a standard alpha-text statement of the "S-V-A" structure

  According to the rule for the existence of a logical alpha-text statement the subject can  only exist if the attribute, which is not the same as the subject), exists otherwise it is not a logical statement.

Let's see what this implies. We will use a standard logical procedure such as negation to  challenge all three of the above statements and compare results.
 

 (1 negated) A dog is not a faithful animal. " Normal negation"

(2 negated )   A unicorn is not a fictitious animal.  " Self contradictory" because the unicorn is defined as fictitious. (A thing can't be real  and not real  at the same time).

(3 negated) God is not the first cause. "Self contradictory"

 This statement no. 3 negated appears to be a standard alpha-text statement of the "S-V-A" structure

This statement is  "self contradictory",  because the "first cause" (the subject) has been previously defined as meaning God. (God cannot be the first cause and not be the first cause at the same time).

I know some readers will say that I am just playing word tricks, but the purpose of this essay is to explore the application of reason before belief and not the application of belief before reason. 

The subject attribute rule, which is the basic the structure of a logical  English Language alpha-text statement  gives the appearance of truth to nonsense statements. Look at statement no. 2, negated. We know the unicorn does not exist, but the statement looks true,  because on first inspection the structure (S-V-A) does not give us any indication that the statement is really of the order, subject - verb - subject,  (S-V-S)

 The reason we get into these contradictory statements like those of  negated  (3 and 4) is because the English language contains a large number of similar meaning words and we sometimes accidently  select a word, for the attribute,  that means the same as the word we selected for the subject . This accident results in  the subject and the attribute being  the same, thus resulting in an (S-V-S) structure, which by definition is not a logical alpha-text statement. 

The statement: "God is the first cause", really means, in alpha-text terms: "God is God", (S-V-S), which as you know by now is not a logical  English language alpha-text  statement because the subject and the attribute are the same.

Conclusion:

So from those above examples which  looked like a statement of truth and  did not stand up to standard logical truth testing, we can deduce that the English language is not concerned with presenting only statements of truth.  It gives the same structural appearance to truth as it gives to falsity. This aspect of the English language is great for writing stories and poetry but causes major problems for truth seekers. 

In my "Supplementary Information", below, we will look at bringing alpha-text statements together into groups of two or more and comparing them to evaluate possible contradictions. 

Supplementary Information:

(1) The Causal Argument for the Existence of God:

 "God is the first cause", some refer to him as the first mover but it has the same meaning.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his theory of causation attempted to prove the existence of God by using a sequence of cause and effect examples that he constructed into the "causal chain". He assumed the existence of God as, "first mover" because his causal chain argument required a first link, (every link in the chain had to have a previous link), and in order for his chain to have a first link he assumed the  first link must be God. 

Thomas  used the existence of the causal chain to show that everything had to have a previous cause, and, that God must exist, because, the chain  had to have  a first term and he assigned the value God to that first term. From our discussion above of the (S-V-A) structure it follows that if the attribute exists then the subject  must exist   This causal proof of  God's existence was  good enough for him. In other words God must be the first term because all the following terms existed. 

In our above analysis we found a contradiction in the statement:  "God is the first cause".  That contradiction is generally known, among people who concern themselves with logical reasoning, as:  "first term contradiction".

An Attempt to Solve the "First Term Contradiction"

The determinist thinkers, (believe that everything is predetermined by God), who were also Christian thinkers, and  because they recognized the first term contradiction,  went one step further and declared God as the first term in the causal chain. 

They did the same thing Thomas did, they put God at the front, only they declared that god was the first term and that all the other terms followed from the first term. In other words they tried to  solve the first term contradiction by using a definition which in-effect says that there is no first term contradiction, but as you can see from our above analysis it's still there.

(2) The idea that God knows everything 

I mentioned above that I would introduce groups of alpha-text statements and evaluate them for possible contradictions.
God knows everything is a common belief among Christians. Let us look at the idea that God knows everything, past, present, and  future. If he does not know everything then he is just like us. For reference purposes God, knowing everything, is defined as determinism.

Let's look at a group of alpha-text statements that are connected with Christian beliefs.

(1) God created the Devil.
(2) God made us free to choose between God and the Devil, this is generally known as "free will" or "pro-choice".
(2) If we choose the Devil then we must pay for our sins.
(3) God wants us to love him.
(4) God loves each person - including those  living, dead and unborn.
(5) God knows the past, the present, and the future of each person living, unborn and dead.
(6) We cannot question the word or actions attributed to God.
(7) Having a sinful thought is the same as committing the sin. 

If we now group the two statements, determinism (God knows everything), and freewill (choice between good and evil) it should behave as follows:

statement:

If determinism(God knows everything) is true then freewill is not true.

If determinism (God knows everything) is not true then freewill is true.

These statements (S-V-A) look ok; there appears to be no obvious self contradictions.

Let us now introduce the Devil into our thinking. By definition God made the Devil. Christians believe that man/woman have freewill to chose the path of God or the path of the Devil. If they choose the path of the Devil then they are accountable and will be punished for their sins.

First grouped statements:

If  determinism (God knows everything) is true then the devil does not exist.(because there is no freewill to choose between sin and not sin - it's all destiny)

If determinism (God knows everything ), is not true then the devil exists. (This is self contradictory because God created the Devil and the Devil still exists by definition, therefore if the Devil does not exist then God does not exist).

In both cases the devil does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist. This exercise implies that the existence of God cannot be proven using an  English Language Alpha-text Statement..

(3) The Idea That God Gave Us The Right To Chose Between Good and Evil

The believers say that God has said that we have the right to choose between good and Evil (sin), this is basically a pro-choice condition. Pro-choice is generally known as a woman's right to choose between "killing her unborn child and not killing her unborn child. An act that  some people consider good and others consider evil.

It could be logically argued that those believers, who are preventing some women,  from exercising the right to choose, are interfering with a God given right, and therefore those interfering believers, are committing a sin against God and they must also be punished.

The same logical argument applies to anyone who takes the life of another - it even applies to taking your own life. By this argument if we interfere between a murderer and his or her victim then we are interfering with his or her God given right to make the choice between committing and not committing murder, therefore, because of our interference,  we have committed a sin against God's will.

What I have just written  may seem crazy to the average Christian, but is it not what God meant when he said "turn the other cheek"?  I know, your are going to say, "God never meant that'!

There is another interesting Christian belief that I was taught and directly impacts this discussion. If you think of committing a sin than you have committed that sin, there is not difference between thinking and doing.

If you think about killing then you have already committed the sin of killing. If you think about preventing a person from exercising their God given right to chose between a good and an evil act then you have sinned against God's will. 

Concluding Remarks

These contradictions are not what believers are interested in knowing or even thinking about,  but it is all perfectly logical. It may be best if you keep these ideas to yourself, mainly because many believers,  want the reassurance, that their belief in God, has a logical foundation, and they will be desirous, to burn you at the stake, if you try to prove, otherwise.

What are you going to tell the mother who has lost her child through death - that there is no God taking care of her child ? That God did not have a plan for her child?  She does not want to hear that  it's just bad luck or the act of some crazy. She  needs to make sense out of the universe, because  because she does not want the death of a loved one to have not value.

On the other hand, if they knew otherwise, would their energy go into better crime prevention, medical care, etc.? 

The intent of this essay is not to prove that there is no God, but to show that understanding what you read can be a very difficult if we allow our beliefs to colour our understanding.  I felt that the belief in God discussion was an excellent example of how alpha-text statements  of belief can  colour reason. 

This and the previous essay look at language truth and belief from an individual perspective, but we live as groups and group thinking influences our beliefs. With this idea in mind my next essay, third,  will explore problems learning and understanding numbers, and, my following essay will explore language, group pressure, and beliefs. A fifth essay that groups these ideas with artistic trends is in it's early stages.

Note: 00-10-14
I have been spending much of my spare time painting;  there are not enough hours in the day and it looks like I will not get back to my writing for  many months. 

I will recommend a small very readable book titled "Language Truth and Logic" by Alfred Jules Ayer - second edition late 1940's, who philosophically has a strong deconstructionist leaning.  Published by Dover.