Bob,
That’s probably because you have more of a life than I do…
My apologies for misunderstanding what you were after. I think my confusion about your request came from the fact that my universalism (technically speaking) follows from my orthodox trinitarian theism, not vice versa.
My previous statements in regard to the implications of other types of theism, have always been along the line of:
a.) universalism does not follow as surely from them as it follows from trinitarian theism;
b.) ethicality itself essentially fails to have any ground beyond mere power exertion,if anything less than trinitarian (or at least binitarian) theism is true. (Which has some important relations to hope for universal salvation of God’s enemies by God–or the lack thereof.)
Personally, I recommend grounding a belief in trinitarian theism in other ways (metaphysically and/or exegetically) than as a guarantor of universalism. Which is not the same as denying that trinitarian theism is important, in relation to universalism, as a guarantor of universalism.
In fact, I’m even loath to try to make an argument to trinitarian (or even binitarian) theism via comparison with how it fits to universalism compared to other theistic options. A careful check of my “Saying Grace” sermon, for example, will show that I’m not making that argument there.
But since there are people who start from a hope for universalism in one or another form (my best beloved would doubtless be one of those people ), and want to get an idea for which kind of theistic claim best provides a hope for universalism; then I do make comparisons of that sort, on occasion. I did so in an informal way last year, for example, in a press release regarding Matthew Murray, the cult/pop-atheistic boy (rebelling against his homeschooling Christian parents) who shot up several churches in Colorado before killing himself after being severely wounded by an armed guard in the last church he arrived at.
The full press release can be found here. But I’ll excerpt and rephrase some portions for my current comment. I’ll even put it in a syllogistic form, as far as I can.
(Note that the press release itself doesn’t contain the comparison; but comes with a longer text in pdf and doc formats, that does. Keep in mind that the language of the p-r is far more informal. Also, the relative order and spread of propositions is a little different in the p-r.)
P(roposition) 1.) Salvation (per se) of a person requires that the person to be saved must be saved by at least one person.
O(bservation) 1.) P1 requires some kind of interpersonal union between the saving person and the person to be saved (even if the union is minimal).
O2.) The intentions of derivative persons may fail insofar as they may be trumped by the behavior of the ground upon which the derivative persons depend for existence.
C(onclusion) 1.) Other things being equal, a person to be saved has better assurance of finally being saved (whatever ‘salvation’ is supposed to mean) in proportion to the characteristics of the ultimate ground of reality. (from P1, O1, O2.)
P2.) ‘Salvation’ involves doing some kind of good to the person being saved.
C2.) Other things being equal, a person to be saved has better assurance of finally being saved in proportion to the likelihood that the characteristics of the ultimate ground of reality involve doing good to persons. (from C1, P2.)
Subsequent hypotheses shall thus address the result of C2 by considering various ideas about the ground of all reality.
H(ypothesis) 1.) The ground of reality is not personal at all. (i.e. naturalistic or supernaturalistic atheism is true.)
C3.) If H1 is true, the ground of reality offers no assurance at all that a person may be saved. (from H1, C1.)
H2.) The ground of reality is such that a derivative person’s “personhood” is some kind of declension or fall, to be reversed.
O3.) If H2 is true, the personhood of the derivative person should cease to exist eventually.
C4.) If H2 is true, the ground of reality is such that the person to be ‘saved’ will cease to exist eventually instead. (from H2, O3.)
O4.) If a person ceases to exist, that person no longer can be the receiver of good done to that person.
C5.) If H2 is true, the ground of reality offers (less than!) no assurance at all that a person (as such) may be saved. (from C2, C4, O4.)
H3.) The independent ground of some reality is personal, but it has nothing to do with the system of reality in which the person to be saved exists. (i.e. cosmological dualism or some other limited-multiple-IF philosophy is true, with God being one of the IFs)
C6.) If H3 is true, the existence of an ultimate God is completely irrelevant to whether a derivative person in that other system of reality (not dependent on God for its existence) may be saved. (from H3, C1)
H4.) The ground of reality is (somehow) personal and non-personal.
O5.) Any expectation of behavior of the H4 ground of reality is perfectly balanced by its equal and opposite characteristics.
C7.) If H4 is true, the ground of reality offers no particular assurance that a person may be saved. (from C1, H4, O5.)
H5.) The ground of reality is personal, but God refuses to have anything to do with this system of reality other than being (in some way) its originator. (i.e. minimal deism is true.)
C8.) If H5 is true, the ground of reality offers less than no assurance that a person may be saved. (from C1, H5.)
H6.) The ground of reality is personal, but although God is interested in subordinate realities, God refuses to act in regard to the operations of those subordinate realities. (i.e. nominal deism is true.)
O6.) A derivative person, as a derivative person, must exist in a subordinate system of reality, one way or another.
C9.) If H6 is true, the ground of reality offers less than no assurance that a person may be saved. (from C1, H6, O6.)
H7.) Entities more powerful than human persons exist, but the ground of reality is still essentially as stated in one of the previous hypotheses.
C10.) If H7 is true, the ground of reality is at best irrelevant to the salvation of a person; and might offer less than no assurance of the salvation of a person. (from H7, C{3:9})
H8.) Some theism more immanent than nominal deism is true; but God is primarily concerned with the mere exercise of effective power.
O7.) Someone needing ‘salvation’ is at least being threatened by an effective exercise of power (one way or another).
C11.) If H8 is true, the ground of reality offers no assurance that a person may be saved; and maybe even less than no assurance! (from H8, O7, C11.)
H9.) God exists, but is not in Himself a unity of Persons.
O8.) If H9 is true, then God has nothing intrinsically to do with unity between persons.
C12.) If H9 is true, the ground of reality offers (at best) less assurance that a person may be saved, than if God had intrinsically to do with unity between persons. (from H9, O8, C1, maybe also C2.)
H10.) God exists, and is in Himself a unity of Persons; but this unity has nothing to do with His own self-existence.
O9.) If H10 is true, then God could act finally against unity among persons, without acting against the ground of His own self-existence.
C13.) If H10 is true, the ground of reality offers (at best) less assurance that a person may be saved, than if God’s own self-existence had intrinsically to do with unity between persons. (from H10, O9, C1, maybe also C2.)
H11.) God exists, and is in Himself a unity of Persons, and this unity has something to do with His own self-existence (i.e. positive aseity is true, and God exists at least as God self-begetting and God self-begotten).
C14.) If H11 is true, the ground of reality offers more assurance that a person (even an enemy of God) may sooner or later finally be saved, than all previous hypotheses. (from C1, maybe also C2, H11, C{3:13})
Note: one could continue this line of reasoning a bit further to find how trinitarian theism is superior to binitarian theism for such an assurance as well.
O10.) If H11 is true, then any action by such a God that resulted in the final severing and/or non-restoration of unity between persons (whether between Himself and derivative persons or between derivative persons and each other), would involve God acting against His own ground of self-existence.
O11.) An entity that acts against the ground of its own existence, will cease to exist, unless the ground of its existence behaves in such a way as to prevent the cessation of its existence.
O12.) A self-existent entity has nothing to save it from the cessation of its existence if It acts against the ground of its own existence.
O13.) If H11 is true, then all reality, including the past and present existence of derivative entities, depends on God’s continuing existence for existence.
P3.) I am a derivative entity. (ideally should be established by another analysis.)
P4.) I exist. (Self-reflexive claim tacitly necessary for any personally responsible argumentation.)
C15.) If H11 is true, God shall certainly continue persistently acting toward restoration of interpersonal unity, where some derivative entity is acting toward breaking this unity. (from O10, O11, O12, O13, P3, P4.)
P5.) Hypotheses presented in this argument concerning the existence and characteristics of God, are sufficiently exhaustive as relevant options.
C16.) H11 (aside from expansions into trinitarian theism where relevant), if true, offers exclusively certain assurance that God shall persistently act toward the restoration of interpersonal unity, where some derivative entity is acting toward breaking this unity. (from C15, P5.)
I should note in regard to P5 that I have not addressed a few key forms of pantheism in the argument; so the H-list could be expanded to some extent in that regard. Also, some of the hypotheses overlap in regard to multiple principle application.
Was that more of what you were looking for from the syllogism, Bob, topically?
I’m inclined to say that people ought to be trusted by default until and unless you find reason to distrust them (whether on particular topics or generally). Beyond that… that’s just the process of living interdependently with people. It’s probably something people can only learn by experience; I don’t know to what extent it can be taught.
Relatedly, none of my arguments are the same as learning to trust God. They can provide tools to help in learning to trust God, but that’s all.