To take the first jab at answering this inquiry, it would be fair to assume one would ask this question in rhetorical context, being that the answer is blatantly obvious. Though to prove my conjecture, it will be necessary to first prove logical validations in this Question. We will also apply the analysis of the reference to a sermon titled “sinners in the hand's of an angry god” which was given by a preacher named Johnathan Edwards in 1741, it was a well written argument, first providing a danger or infinite despair in “Hell”, then supplying the ultimate trump card of happiness in the form of “Heaven,” but ultimately it was highly successful in attracting people to the puritan religion. People derive belief's through all ports of thought, and life. and some of us make the mistake of grouping beliefs solely to religion, when in actuality, beliefs range widely from proverbial sayings, to tautological axioms, to believing in the success of a musician, beliefs are trust in something, and are not always so illogical.
First, let us examine Logical thought to prove rhetorical the aims of the question in reference. To begin first, we must clarify a few key concepts from Aristotle's “Laws of Thought,” first take note of the fact that the question is also, a pair of statement's, in that; A Or B, the first law—the law of identity—states that “A is A, just as B is B” things have respective nature, everything is the same as itself and different from another. Recognizing the boundaries of a phenomenon no matter what form it may posses, is the first step in understanding said item, and correctly correlating it to other entities. The second law—the law of non-contradiction—Explains that two Contradictories cannot be true in the same sense at the same time, as Aristotle put it “It is impossible for anyone to believe the same thing to be and not be. Metaphysics, IV Part 4, W.D. Ross—One can not say that something is and that it is not at the same time, this predication is applicable in all logical analysis. The third law—the law of excluded middle—is an important means to clarify the difference between a Contradictory—categorical proposition—and a Contrary—Universal categorical proposition—as well as, guidelines for proving statements validity. An example of a Contradictory statement could be “All X are Y” and “Some Y are not X”, Contradictory statements are such that, One predicate is true If and Only if the other is fault, these statement's are Volatile and can easily succumb to the “Principle of explosion” which we will review later. Contraries must always be false, if the original claim is of tautological value—its opposite would obviously be false—. While our inquiry in reference is of Contradictory nature, actively neither could be true without venturing to the bounds of the realm of thought, which is the first sign of it's Rhetorical nature.
Take A [All X /effect...