Then you and I worship two very different gods. My Lord is the unchanging, eternal perfect Logos who creates and orders the universe, a God of order, reasonable, rational and superrational, but never irrational or illogical. An illogical god is one that creates a disordered universe, a universe where flying pigs pop in and out of existence for no reason. Wait, uncaused flying pigs would still be too ordered for an illogical god. An illogical God is even sillier than that. Such a God is not worthy of worship. Throw out the rules of reason and not only do you get rid of the law of sufficient reason (the father of causality) but also the law of non-contradiction. Thus, God is and he is not. He doesn't exist and he does. Heck, nothing makes sense in the world of an illogical god, and since our minds can only know things that are rational, then we would not be able to know such a silly god. Such a god is not worthy of worship. A pathetic shadow of our true God.
Alas, when I was in the midst of despair believing you would never come to see the teachings of the Philosophers you show me a new light. 'Thus, God is and he is not. He doesn't exist and he does.' Did you go out and read St. Dionysius last night? Because that's basically what he says in his last Chapter of The Mystical Theology
, to quote the final lines of this great patristic work which are refering to the One, to the Divinity:
'...nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.'
Of course, I am not saying that is illogical, that's just as silly as saying that he is logical, rather he is beyond logic and he encompasses both logic and illogic, the rational and irrational, yet he is bound by neither, he is the source of both and yet he is neither.
Illogic is not a thing in and of itself. It is a lack of what does flow from God, i.e. Logic. Illogic is like a hole; a hole in the ground is not a thing in and of itself, it is a lack of dirt. Illogic is not a thing! Gosh. It is simply a preson failing to use his brain!
So illogic flows from a void where God is not? So you're suggesting to me that there is a place where God is not? So God is not omnipresent? What a great and might force must this illogic, must this darkness be, for it can hold at bay even the pre-Eternal God, the pre-Eternal God cannot conquer it, thus it must be the Equal of the Pre-Eternal God...thus this Darkness must be a God as great as your God of Reason, Light, and Order; let us add to this that with each passing second the universe becomes less and less ordered (ever read Stephen Hawking's? His popular science books are a bit dumbed down, but his Academic Publications are Great)...All Hail the God of Darkness, Disorder, and Decay, the Eternal Conqueror of the Universe!!! Of course, the God I worship is the source of both the 'god of logic' and the 'god of illogic' He is the source of both, he encompasses both, yet he is neither.
Please, do share the amazing law of incompletenenss. I am waiting to be amazed.
Oh, it's a wonderful theorem, if you want to read it some day it's classified as 'GÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¶del 1931.' Here's a link to the proof proper http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/people/h/hirzel/papers/canon00-goedel.pdf
though it unfortunately lacks GÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¶del descriptions of the paper's implications on consistancy (which is technically called the 'Second Incompleteness Theorem').
Specifically the theorem states:For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
In a more general form, No Formal Theory can be both Consistant and Complete. Which means that any Formal Theory which includes the axiom of non-contradiction must inherently be incomplete. Since Logic uses the axiom of non-contradiction, Logic must be incomplete; that is to say that there must be Truth which is unprovable by Logic -- There is truth beyond logic.
Moving on to the second incompleteness theorem:For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
Basically, if you say that your axiomatic system is consistant, then it is inherently inconsistant because inorder to prove consistancy you must prove completeness and by the First Incompleteness Theorem it is impossible to prove completeness, thus contradicting your statement that your system is consistant. Bascially, any Formal Theory into which the axiom of non-contradiction is introduced automatically contradicts itself.
Just curious. How do you know that Christianity is true and not Buddhism?
How do I know
, I don't; the only thing that I know
is that I am, and I know that only because I think. I, of course, do not know
who I am, or what I am, or where I am, or how I am...merely that I am (Descartes was great up to that conclusion, then he had got himself into a rut and tried to write his way out of it, ultimately making him look like a fool...but he must be accredited with discovering, or at least codifying, that philosophical truth).
So you claim to KNOW that you can use REASON to show that you can KNOW that you can't KNOW anything from REASON. Sounds a bit absurd to me.
What does the fact that I can use logic to disprove logic say about logic, logically speaking? You see, logic is self-contradicting.