Many decision theorists have credited Blaise Pascal for providing the first game theory matrix in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Solomon, a Hebrew king, was recorded in 964 B.C. to have been faced with determining the rightful mother of an infant. This well known account involves two women that each claimed to be the mother of a baby. Solomon knew that the real mother would be motivated by love that would be expressed by self-sacrifice regarding the baby's well being. He also knew that the other woman was motivated by stealing or "no" love and would be less self-sacrificing toward the child's health. Solomon would never choose to take innocent human life--murder--but the women did not know this was the case. He proposed that the baby be cut in half with each woman or player receiving a piece. Solomon's deception strategy was designed to force an immediate and honest decision by the two players. It was also designed to narrow the player's perception of the negative gain from an outcome of disagreeing with the king, a defection (D) strategy. One woman agreed, a strategy of cooperation (C), with Solomon's grim proposal and the real mother risked the adoption of a defection strategy by relinquishing the baby to the other woman. Solomon gave the baby to the self-sacrificing woman who was the real mother. A matrix could be created reflecting their decision-making options.

Decision to cooperate and gain ½ a baby, but the baby dies.

-or-

Decision to defect and risk loosing all the baby, 0, but the baby lives.

                       real mother
                    C                 D
other woman   C   (½, ½)            (½, 0)
                    D   (0, ½)            (0, 0)

Solomon knew that the option of (½, 0) would provide the perception of a win, win strategy to both women, players. The real mother sought to insure that the baby lived by defecting and the other woman cooperated to prevent loosing control of her possession, the baby.

Another commonly known example of decision-making occurred much earlier between Adam and Eve. They were given the decision to cooperate or defect from a strategy of not eating the forbidden fruit. As is widely understood, they each defected resulting in a lose, lose outcome.

Those examples of human freewill were correctly noticed by René Descartes as proof of the existence of an infinite God. Unfortunately, he incorrectly determined that mankind had the ability to do good and therefore did not need grace for salvation--given that man had did his best. But, finite ability to achieve could never equal an infinite standard of good. Descartes' inconsistent logic of finite mankind being able to achieve equality with an infinite God's standard led to further incorrect beliefs that there wasn't a need for prayer to God or for biblical/theological study, and that all belief systems labeled as Christian equally reflected worship of the same infinite God. Though it is true that finite humans can't know all the characteristics of the infinite God, it is also reasonable to see that by divine revelation God can be known sufficiently to achieve His purposes. Beliefs that reject God's revelation cause the object of their relationship focus to cease being on God and, instead, on another god. For example, if grace is rejected even though the Bible states that man is saved by grace, then Jesus the Christ's life and sacrificial death for sins must also be rejected by all, which includes those with the label of Christian. Jesus, as divine savior, would be meaningless. Grace, unmerited favor, is an entity unique to Christianity. This is why Pascal, along with the author of this paper, and others oppose many beliefs by Descartes.

Descartes did acknowledge that man thinks and therefore exists. Mankind's self-awareness indicates the existence of nonmaterial realities as Solomon understood, such as love, and Pascal understood, grace and salvation. The units of logic, love, self-sacrifice, grace, and salvation, were joined together by their appropriate relationships to find decisions based on truth. In a systematic study of those theological concepts and other units of logic lies the foundation for understanding the nonmaterial aspects of existence. That study in turn promotes the understanding of the material dimension of existence.

Systematic theology solidifies and stratifies the words and meaning that articulate nonmaterial realities for decision analysis. This process epistemologically exposes both the potential logic units, monads, and the resultant different strings of opposing logic formations. Unlike the thrust of work by Gottfried Leibniz, individual nonmaterial or theological units, monads, may have eternal existence in cause and/or effect.

2. A Nonexhaustive Listing of the Monads in Systematic Theology

theology; nature, knowledge, logic
God
reason
revelation; Bible, inerrant, immutable
unity
spirituality
attributes; infinite, eternal, immense, omnipresence, omnipotence
power; absolute, actual
wisdom
holiness
goodness
love; approbation, benevolence, compassion, mercy, affection
truth; verity, veracity, faithfulness
justice; rectitude, rectoral, commutative, punitive
guilt, innocence
will; absolute, conditional
decrees; sovereignty
trinity; Father, Son, Holy Spirit

relations (between the trinity); subordination
           (between the trinity and creation); redemption, prayer, punishment
creation (of man); freewill, body, soul
         (of matter); natural law
         (of nonmatter); Ten Commandments, relational commandment law
                         (For a listing, please see Attachments A and B of the
                          paper by Dallas F. Bell, Jr. titled The Basic META Corpora
                          and Semantic Taxonomy of Systematic Political Science.)
                          angels
                          demons; Satan

providence; efficiency, noncontinuous, distributive; good, blessing, evil, curses

covenant; obedience, life
sin; death, entropy
Christ; Old Testament, New Testament
person, incarnate, prophet, priest, king, intercessor

atonement; salvation, sacrifice, righteousness, mediator
reprobation
calling; gospel, preaching, redemptive, grace
regeneration
conversion; backsliding
repentance
faith; belief, trust
justification; imputation, peace, forgiveness, freedom
adoption; inheritance
sanctification
death; immortality
Christ's second coming; tribulation
resurrection; rapture
judgment
heaven
hell

3. Theological Treebank and Logic Operators

3.1 Theological Treebank

The corpus of monads in systematic theology can be used to form a treebank. A treebank is a corpus that has been processed syntactically to show grammar/truth dependency. It can facilitate identification of language data. A treebank algorithm could be used for corpus sharing by converting the use of one treebank to the use of another.

The general nonexhaustive corpus presented in this paper can be expanded toward more completeness (i.e., to include all the specific words or names for God such as Jehovah-shalom). This would involve using words of more than one language.

3.2 Logic Operators

Man's finite intellect gropes with infinity and its subset by considering their parts. The parts are nonmaterial or nonparticle and material or particle. Obviously, the relationship of those parts should be studied systematically. The reality of theology is that it is largely made up of nonmaterial parts or monads. Those monads make strings of logic or dyads and triads--operators.

A dyad consists of two monads of reality denoting an operation of relevance or logic operation. Each monad can be considered as inherent to becoming a dyad or triad. A triad is formed by three monads. When true monads form a dyad or triad set order is created. For each true monad, such as love, an untrue monad is created, such as "no" love. The true dyad of (God, love) presents the untrue dyads of (no God, love), (no God, no love), and (God, no love). "No" includes changing the monad or word meaning from expressing a reality to expressing an untruth while maintaining its use either by ignorance or for deception.

The disorder and inconsistencies in a logic string are made evident when one reality or monad is incorrectly used and thereby nullifies an accepted truth. For instance, analyzing the logic of the evolutionist, Charles Peirce, who acknowledged that love was a fundamental force and therefore a reality in our universe. He, like Solomon, realized that love caused self-sacrifice needed for human order and survival. Peirce's triad of logic could be (God, no creation, love). The true triad listed in systematic theology would be (God, creation, love). The untrue dyads of (no creation, God) or (no God, no creation) must be used by Peirce for logical consistency. Their usage would create the triad of (no God, no creation, no love) nullifying the reality of love and give rise to the behavioral concept of disorder referred to as survival of the fittest. In a material sense, this is similar to saying the earth has heat and light but no sun. Only an infinite intellect has the authority and ability to bequeath infinite attributes such as love and grace. The untruth and disorder of Peirce's logic is made manifest by showing the relationship of true monads. Those with the systematic political science category of theological beliefs of T1, T2, and T3 must have consistent logic to creditably express their beliefs. This explains why T1 beliefs form First World government systems and reject Peirce's and Descartes' logic which result in Second and Third World governments.

Fluid decisions, like finding peace, can be analyzed. Using systematic theology, peace may be understood relationally with the triad composed of (God, commandments or natural law, justice). Without accepting the true monad of God there isn't any authority for human compliance with commandments or natural law. Without the immutable standard of compliance with commandments or natural law the concept of justice must be situational, at best, and therefore untrue. If any of the triad parts or monads are put into the "no" category, disorder and conflict is created and peace cannot be considered a logical expectation for those holding the incorrect beliefs/behavior. Injecting the true monad of forgiveness may in some instances remit or abate the behavior from inconsistent logic and restore peace. Forgiveness is an individual option and is not applicable to institutions, especially governments. Tolerance, on the other hand, means to endure with an implied loss and would serve only to mask conflict or "no" peace. It would be logically irrelevant to finding the behavior of peace. However, the reality of enduring implies gain and is an integral unit of the monads of systematic theology. The act of enduring is rewarded with the monads of patience and humility, etc.

4. Conclusion

A nonexhaustive list of the monads in systematic theology can be used to form a treebank, making analysis of language data more efficient. Its monads are also vital to logic operations in decision theory. Mankind has always used both material and nonmaterial realities to make decisions for survival, as demonstrated by Solomon in the introduction. The theology corpus presents a systematic approach to logic involving nonmaterial realities. Systematic theology also shows that material realities exist from nonmaterial realities since nonmaterial truth, such as love, has an eternal nature. This doesn't mean that material like the human brain isn't an organic processor of nonmaterial entities like love. But, the intellect can be understood as must having come from intellect. Due to incompleteness, this reality can never be perfectly demonstrated by the finite mind to a finite mind.

The field of cognitive neuroscience is employing many of the advances in technology (e.g. imaging, mapping, and neural modeling, etc.) to study how the brain processes, stores, and retrieves information as it arrives at self-awareness. People with T1 beliefs should use logic consistent with reality and keep the categories of the material brain and soul or mind separate. People with T2 and T3 beliefs will likely use logic to nullify the reality of the soul or mind. Those nullifications must lead to other nullifications until a state of disorder is reached that requires accepting the truth or face destruction and death. Untruth is dependent on truth for existence and T1 beliefs have the goal of accepting common realities and are thus true. T2 and T3 beliefs do not have the goal of accepting realities and are false.

A decision strategy to manipulate the treebank has and will be attempted. Those false saviors or Christs are revealed in the Bible as antichrists. If a world leader forces a seven-year peace treaty on the nation-state of Israel and requires all people to be numbered that logic can be proven to be inconsistent with the peace triad (God, commandments or natural law, justice). The oppression is consistent with the triad of (no God, no commandments or natural law, no justice). The reality of peace is not compatible with that logic. Those Antichrist policies should be resisted unto death by people with T1 beliefs and others who also desire peace.

T1 believers, those who love God with all their heart, soul, and mind and their neighbor as themselves, can have a pure heart and less individual and group stress by having a logic consistent with true monads in systematic theology. The monad of salvation is explained in the New Testament as requiring a relationship with God by His grace. He sent His Son, Jesus, into the world to be a perfect atoning sacrifice for our sin. If we believe in Jesus and repent of our trespasses, we can be assured of eternal life in heaven with Him. In the meantime, our souls can experience peace on earth that passes human understanding. The choice to accept, win, or reject, lose, the opportunity must have eternal consequences.