Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[lelinator]

Well if being stuck in a box is the same thing as being logically consistent, then i think i will stay in the box.

I must admit that you definitely are consistent, logical on the other hand is kind of a subjective term, although thanks to your consistency I can confidently say that you don’t believe that that’s true. And voila, once again we disagree.

Like i said, if i have to give up the fundamental principles of reasoning in order to agree with you, then we are never going to agree; and you have made it clear that you have absolutely no reason to reject my argument.

Here’s an odd thing though, you believe in the law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then they can’t both be true. But for God, a contradiction exists for absolutely everything except God Himself. Because God, according to metaphysics, is the only thing that has always existed. Everything else had to come into existence. And since God exists outside of time, everything except God, both exists, and doesn’t exist. For example, in God’s eyes, you’re both alive and dead.

Hmm there must be something wrong with my logic.

*This post is meant to illustrate that logic is a very unreliable thing.

 

[IWantGod]

You for example, are in God’s eyes, both alive and dead.

You need to explain this, because at the moment it comes across as absurd. I am alive, i am just not God, and so i rely on God’s existential power to be alive.

Hmm there must be something wrong with my logic.

Yes, there is.

• This post is meant to illustrate that logic is a very unreliable thing.

If the principle of contradiction fails, there is no such thing as true or false, which is absurd. True Knowledge ceases to be meaningful, and reason is jettisoned into oblivion.

If that’s what you have to entertain in-order to avoid God as a conclusion, the theist has won the argument.

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

For example, in God’s eyes, you’re both alive and dead.

You need to explain this, because at the ,moment it comes across as absurd. I am alive, i am just not God, and so i rely on God’s existential power to be alive.

You’re right, it does come across as absurd, and so you naturally assume that it’s wrong. But if we’re to rely upon logic then it must be true that for a being that exists outside of time, for whom every moment in time is part of an eternal now, and no moment in time can be said to be any more real than any other moment in time, then to that being, you must actually be both alive and dead.

Now while it’s true that you’re not God, and you can’t see things from God’s perspective, you can still reason out what must be true from such a perspective.

lelinator:

Hmm there must be something wrong with my logic.

Yes, there is.

That’s the problem with reasoning, no matter how carefully one applies it, it’s only as good as the premises that you begin with. And so it’s not that I’ve been questioning your reasoning all this time, it’s that I’ve been questioning your premises. Like the law of non-contradiction. I can accept that it’s true from some perspectives, but I can also see how it might not be true from other perspectives. Like God’s perspective. From God’s perspective, things must be absurd.

If the principle of contradiction fails, there is no such thing as true or false, which is absurd. True Knowledge ceases to be meaningful, and reason is jettisoned into oblivion.

And that’s why you’ll never encounter contradictions, because they lead to absurdities, incoherence, and chaos. But that’s God’s perspective, that’s not your perspective. Your perspective is one where effects naturally follow a cause. And things can’t be both alive and dead. Your perspective is one where things are coherent, and orderly, and amenable to reason. But it’s wrong to assume that that which is true from your perspective, must be true from all perspectives.

Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless, absurdities abound, and chaos reigns. But inside of time, that’s where cause can precede effect, where order and coherency can arise, and consciousness can emerge. You’re a conscious being, and it’s time and order that makes that possible.

 

[IWantGod]

you must actually be both alive and dead.

God’s knowledge of my life and death is not a logical contradiction. It is possible for God to know that i am alive and also know me at the moment of my death in his eternal knowledge because of the very fact that God is not a temporal being. God is not physical and is not in a continuous state of becoming actual (has no limitation in his act of existence), therefore God cannot be defined by or presumed to be subject to physical limitations such as time and space. This coupled with the fact that we exist by the power God, it is impossible for God not to have always known me regardless of my temporal nature. While it is certainly difficult to imagine this, it is clearly not the same thing as God knowing me as being alive and dead at the same temporal moment in time. That would be a contradiction.

From God’s perspective, things must be absurd.

This represents an error in your judgement.

And that’s why you’ll never encounter contradictions, because they lead to absurdities, incoherence, and chaos. But that’s God’s perspective, that’s not your perspective. Your perspective is one where effects naturally follow a cause. And things can’t be both alive and dead. Your perspective is one where things are coherent, and orderly, and amenable to reason. But it’s wrong to assume that that which is true from your perspective, must be true from all perspectives.

And this line of reasoning all follows from your error.

Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless, absurdities abound, and chaos reigns.

And now you’re lost in an infinite desert of nonsense because of that error.

 

[IWantGod]

But it’s wrong to assume that that which is true from your perspective, must be true from all perspectives.

The general root of atheism (except for atheists who think that God’s non-existence is metaphysically certain) is the idea that ignorance of God’s existence is rationally justifiable.

You do a similar thing, in that you are arguing for the idea that we cannot truly know what is metaphysically impossible and therefore we cannot make inferences to what necessarily must be true about existence based on what we think is impossible. But this is not true.

We know that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time, thus we know for a fact that the principle of non-contradiction is intrinsic to the very fabric of existence. There is no space for negotiation. There are things that necessarily follow as true because of this fact, such as the idea that potentiality cannot give actuality to itself, hence the principle of cause and effect regarding the existence of things. The list goes on, and my arguments from premise to conclusion follow necessarily because of this fact.

To claim that things can be relatively true depending on where one stands in a room has no relevance to my argument, for the simple fact that if i am wrong then there is no such thing as truth. The entire human rational enterprise falls to pieces along with the principle of non-contradiction, and it becomes impossible to make any kind of truth claim about existence. Metaphysics deals with being as being and what is required for there to be such a thing as being. It is an ancient metaphysical question. There is no space for relativism. The existence of a necessary-being, that is not comprised of actualised-potential, is the answer to that question, and it is the only possible one.

 

[lelinator]

We know that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time, thus we know for a fact that the principle of non-contradiction is intrinsic to the very fabric of existence. There is no space for negotiation.

But I just gave you what I believe to be a reasoned argument as to why, from the perspective of the first cause, reality must be absurd, incoherent, and chaotic. Because from its perspective everything exists simultaneously, and thus cause and effect are meaningless. It seems to me that all that you’ve done in response is to arbitrarily give the first cause consciousness, so that it can comprehend time without actually existing in time. I see no reason to do that. In fact it seems contradictory to me.

But I don’t wish to get bogged down on the matter, because what I’m really interested in, is just what can be known via reason. On count one, non-contradiction, our reasoning seems to disagree.

So let’s move on to a couple more of your metaphysical arguments on which we disagree. Necessary vs unnecessary beings, and change.

Let’s once again look at things from the perspective of something that exists outside of time. Long ago I used to think that if it was possible for things to either exist, or not exist, then not existing is impossible, because the amount of time during which “nothing” existed would always be zero. Thus “nothing” could never be said to exist. But then it dawned on me that the amount of time during which something that exists outside of time, can be said to exist, must also be zero. Because for something that exists outside of time, it can never be said that it existed for X amount of time. No matter how insignificant that X may be. Thus just as with “nothing”, that which exists outside of time, can’t exist either, because the amount of time during which it exists, is always zero.

Which leads inevitably to the conclusion that for something to be said to exist, it must exist in time. Therefore the first cause cannot exist outside of time without the things that exist in time. Which means that the things that exist in time, your so-called unnecessary beings, must also exist. Their existence is in fact…necessary.

But this leads to another inevitable conclusion. Because for things to exist in time, they must change. Because change is how we measure time. So now we have three necessary things…the first cause, which exists outside of time, those things which exist within time, and change.

So once again I’ve used reason to reach a conclusion that’s in complete opposition to your supposedly irrefutable conclusions. The question is…how is that possible? Is my reasoning flawed? Or is yours?

 

[lelinator]

Metaphysics deals with being as being and what is required for there to be such a thing as being.

I’m not sure that that’s exactly right, although metaphysicists certainly have the right to define it however they choose.

I think that metaphysics is specifically concerned with the coherent reality that the conscious mind perceives. In which case there are indeed rules, such as the law of non-contradiction, which must by necessity apply in such cases. Otherwise conscious, coherent beings such as us wouldn’t exist. But those rules may only apply in regards to the specific case of conscious beings. There may in fact exist realities, or elements thereof, in which things aren’t coherent, and conscious beings don’t exist. You’ve assumed a coherency that’s all-pervasive, and permeates everything and everywhere. That may not be the case. Conscious, coherent realities may be the exception and not the rule.

If so, then the first cause must contain them all. The incoherent as well as the conscious, and consciousness may simply be the product of chance.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m not sure that that’s exactly right, although metaphysicists certainly have the right to define it however they choose.

If you want to understand it, then you will learn what it actually is. It’s a lot more profitable than making things up. As for everything else you have written, i have addressed it, and it has been ignored. And you have done what most people do when they see a conclusion that merits the existence of God; you have asserted that the principle of non-contradiction is null.

But i would be interested in joining a thread discussing whether or not the principle of non-contradiction is existentially universal. But you will have to start the thread, otherwise i am not going to waste my time if you are not interested.

 

[lelinator]

If you want to understand it, then you will learn what it actually is. It’s a lot more profitable than making things up. As for everything else you have written, i have addressed it, and it has been ignored. And you have done what most people do when they see a conclusion that merits the existence of God; you have asserted that the principle of non-contradiction is null.

But i would be interested in joining a thread discussing whether or not the principle of non-contradiction is existentially universal. But you will have to start the thread, otherwise i am not going to waste my time if you are not interested.

This is why I think that being outside the box is better than being inside the box. By being outside the box I can still consider new ideas. Like when Bradskii mentioned Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. I can look at it and go wow, that’s something that I hadn’t thought of before. I can then go on to consider how Penrose might actually be on to something. You on the other hand, are stuck. All that you can do is repeat the same arguments over and over and over again, never free to consider how some conflicting idea might actually be right.

I’m still free to wonder.

But you’re correct on one count, in that after considering your arguments for the umpteenth time I’m very likely to just ignore them. And it has nothing to do with the fact that they conclude the existence of God. After all, I consider myself to be a Christian, and quite a good one at that. Rather, it’s that your arguments don’t make sense. And I don’t like things that don’t make sense.

So I’m not content to live inside your box, where all the questions can be mollified by invoking God. Now if you’re happy inside your little box, then great, but don’t expect me to join you. In my world, the impossible is still possible. And I’m still free to wonder.

 

[IWantGod]

By being outside the box I can still consider new ideas.

You are not just proposing a new idea, you are proposing the end of rational inferences, by saying that actual contradictions could exist thereby rendering reality itself incoherent and fundamentally contradictory.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m very likely to just ignore them.

That’s fine as-long as you realise that you have no rational justification for doing so.

 

[IWantGod]

After all, I consider myself to be a Christian, and quite a good one at that. Rather, it’s that your arguments don’t make sense. And I don’t like things that don’t make sense.

All you ever seem to do is assert that you are correct, and everybody else is wrong. You have to back that up with well reasoned arguments, otherwise it’s just empty words and indicative of a bad attitude. And proposing another way of looking at things is not necessarily the same thing as giving a logically consistent argument. If somebody proposes the existence of a square-circle in-order to avoid a logical conclusion then the debate is over before it’s even started. Up until this point in time you have been arguing for a square-circle with a straight-face, and while that is very frustrating i have been charitable enough to sit in the trenches with you. So until you learn how to reason i will not be wasting anymore time. Thankyou.

 

[lelinator]

You have to back that up with well reasoned arguments,

But here’s part of the problem, to you the only well reasoned arguments are the one’s that agree with your arguments. So whenever we disagree, you’ll always be able to assert that I’ve never made a well reasoned argument. It’s an impossible goal for me to reach.

i have been charitable enough to sit in the trenches with you.

Well how kind of you, but don’t you think that that may work both ways?

So until you learn how to reason i will not be wasting anymore time.

This is another point where we differ. I don’t consider it to be a waste of time just because the other person didn’t seem to listen. I don’t know what the other person is thinking, or that what I say now may not have some effect later. It would be naive of me to think that every seed must produce fruit immediately. I also know that if the discussion has forced me to rethink my arguments, if only in an attempt to make them clearer, then it hasn’t been a waste of time. The other person may not have gained anything, but I have.

So I don’t know, maybe these discussions were a waste of time for you. If so, I guess that I came out the winner, because I consider myself to be better for having had them.

 

[SaberBob]

The criteria for well reasoned arguments were first worked out by the Greeks c. 2500 years ago and refined and perfected by Catholic scholastics in the Middle Ages. To depart from them as “confining and rigid” ESPECIALLY in the law of non-contradiction reveals far more about the persons abandoning these laws, about their capacity to tolerate, even delight in incoherence, than it does about the falsity of the laws of logic and reason.