>>>>”A good argument?”
1. God must be incarnated by an immaculate woman.
2. Jesus is God
3. Mary is a woman
Conc: Mary is immaculate
You’d need “4. Mary incarnated Jesus”
for a better argument.
And it’d be better from an objective perspective to use “give/gave birth to” instead of “incarnate” in order to simplify the terms and remove as much complexity as possible without harming the point of the proof.
If you did these two things then the syllogism would be closer to proper form. However...
The original syllogism we were looking at proof for was:
Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Mary is the mother of God
The first premise, Jesus is God, would need to be proven; unless of course, both sides of the argument are willing to accept this as fact. Then the second premise, the same. The conclusion is true if the first and second premises are true - by definition of terms. So, it’s pretty tight for Christians, those accepting the divinity of Christ and Mary as his mother.
Now, in your new syllogism, we have the same consideration to deal with in the first premise: God must be incarnated by an immaculate woman.
This would have to be either proven or postulated by mutual agreement.
I don’t think you are willing to accept it, and the Catholic doctrine does not assert it.
I realize that many use something similar to your syllogism to argue for the Immaculate Conception; however, this has logical problems (among them infinite regress) for me personally - I’ve never used it or given it much weight. Others see it differently, but I haven’t seen a tight logic for it.
And it’s not required that I, or any other Catholic, give it weight or teach it or hold to it as doctrine.
The doctrine is not that Immaculate Conception was a requirement for Jesus’ birth, but that it was a “singular privilege and grace of God.” The full declaration is:
“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
Therefore, neither of us is accepting your first premise, so you must prove it, by another syllogism, in order to hope for a valid conclusion. I doubt you have a proof you accept, given that it’s most likely you don’t accept the IC.
So, I don’t see this route as something you’d pursue in your path to a simple syllogism to prove that “Mary is not the mother of God.”
But the "fitting" argument as presented is likewise invalid.
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
Let's see how the argument is presented:
1. Mary is born.
2. Because of Jesus, Mary is immaculate.
Conc: God graced Mary at her birth to be immaculate.
The whole argument is out of order! It doesn't follow. There's nothing fitting about it.