AI argument maps - a very useful AI function

MJ. Smith

Please implement an argument mapping function. While a summary function is useful, I would use an argument map more frequently especially in commentaries and patristics. I chose Ambrose of Milan. Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. Translated by John J. Savage. Vol. 42. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1961. (Ambrose, The Six Days of Creation 1.1.4–2.7) as an example and show example output here and in comments. Please do not delete the examples as they are AI generated - that is the point

The passage from Ambrose of Milan lays out a defense of Moses as a divinely inspired author and of creation ex nihilo in opposition to pagan philosophical cosmologies. Below is a structured argument map of the text:

Main Thesis

Moses, inspired by God, authoritatively affirms that God created the world ex nihilo, contrary to pagan philosophical accounts of cosmogenesis.

I. Moses’ Statement in Genesis 1:1 Has Theological Intent and Philosophical Precision (Section 5)

A. Purpose of Genesis 1:1

Moses foresaw the emergence of cosmological errors (either already present or anticipated).

• He began with "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" to:Emphasize that God preexists creation.Assert that God is the source of all beginnings.

B. Scriptural Support

John 8:25: Jesus identifies Himself as “the beginning,” reinforcing the claim that God is not derived from anything else.

C. Polemic Against Philosophical Cosmologies

Refutes the idea that God is a mere artisan copying from preexisting matter or a Platonic Idea.

Moses affirms immediate, volitional creation, not construction from a model.

D. Speed of Creation

The syntax ("He created") signals the instantaneous nature of creation, reinforcing divine omnipotence.

II. Moses’ Authority as a Witness and Prophet (Section 6)

A. Moses’ Education and Integrity

Trained in all Egyptian knowledge, yet rejects Thales’ doctrine (that all derives from water).

Chose exile and justice over luxury and vice, demonstrating moral credibility.

B. Moses’ Prophetic Credentials

Retreated for divine contemplation.

Knew God "face to face"—a unique prophetic intimacy per Deut 34:10.

Did not receive truth through visions or riddles, but through direct revelation.

III. Moses’ Inspiration and Reliability (Section 7)

A. Divine Assistance

God promised to guide Moses' speech (Exod 4:12) in his mission to Pharaoh.

By implication, the same divine assistance governed his cosmological declarations.

B. Contrast with Philosophical Error

• Rejects:Atomism: creation as a result of random atomic collisions.Materialism: world fashioned from preexisting matter.

• Affirms:God is the efficient cause of creation.Divine mind contains the causes and forms of all things.

C. Critique of Pagan Theories

Atomist cosmologies are like spider webs—delicate, unsubstantial, and speculative.

Philosophers who do not know the Creator cannot know the Ruler.

Conclusion

We must follow Moses, who knew both the Author and Ruler of creation, rather than be misled by speculative philosophy.

Summary Diagram (Outline Form)

Thesis: Moses’ statement is divinely inspired truth about creation.

Support:
a. Purposeful phrasing of Gen 1:1
b. Christological validation
c. Rejection of Platonism/atomism

Credibility of Moses:
a. Egyptian education
b. Moral heroism
c. Unique prophetic vision

Divine inspiration of speech:
a. Proof from mission to Pharaoh
b. Implies reliability of cosmological claim

Critique of alternatives:
a. Atomist randomness is incoherent
b. Philosophers lack knowledge of God

Exhortation: Follow Moses, not vain opinion.

Let me know if you'd like a visual representation or formal logical reduction.

MJ. Smith

Note to generate the examples, I simply asked it to provide an argument map without specifying anything more. It then offered to generate the visual and the logical. The visual could be produced to feed into the Logos Canvas for a special treat.

partial visual - more visually graphics are available but this illustrates the usefulness:

MJ. Smith

For logic nerds because it is easily available

II. Formal Logical Reduction

Let the following predicates and terms represent key elements:

• M(x) = "x is Moses"
• D(x) = "x is divinely inspired"
• S(x) = "x speaks truly about creation"
• T(x) = "x holds a theological error about creation"
• C(x) = "x claims creation from material causes" (e.g. atomism, Platonism)
• G = "God"
• E = "The world was created ex nihilo by God"
• K(x, y) = "x knows y"
• R(x) = "x is a reliable witness of divine truth"

Formalized Premises

1. ∀x [(D(x) ∧ R(x)) → S(x)]
2. D(M) ∧ R(M)
3. ∴ S(M)                          (from 1 and 2 by modus ponens)
4. S(M) → E
5. ∴ E                                (from 3 and 4 by modus ponens)
6. ∀x [C(x) → T(x)]
7. Atomists and Platonists hold C(x)
8. ∴ Atomists and Platonists hold T(x)           (from 6 and 7)
9. ∀x [¬K(x, G) → ¬K(x, Ruler of the world)]
10. Atomists and Platonists: ¬K(x, G)
11. ∴ ¬K(x, Ruler of the world)                 (from 9 and 10)
12. ∴ ¬R(x) for Atomists and Platonists           (from 11)
13. ∴ We should follow M, not C(x)-holders            (from 2, 8, and 12)