The ultimate truth is that there is Truth

[rossum]

This itself is an illogical objection.

Logic dictates that one can not know everything, so saying “We don’t understand” would be perfectly correct, and logical.

The very nature of God must, ultimately be beyond our knowing, else we’d be God too… if we knew and experienced everything that God is and does.

You apear to have misunderstood my point. I was commenting on your saying “That law [Law of the Excluded Middle] doesn’t apply to God in the Christian way of thinking.” Here you are not saying that God is unknowable - though you do say that elsewhere - you are saying that logic does not apply to God, or at least that the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to God.

I have no objection to there being things that are unknowable, and the Halting Problem is a good example of such a thing. I agree with much of your post on the knowable and unknowable.

My point is that if God is not subject to the Law of the Excluded Middle then normal logic does not apply to God. All logical argument about God is immediately rendered worthless, because it is inapplicable.

Whilst this does not prove that God is both being and doing it shows that one can be both… insofar as one can be in a state that defies your ideas of logic.

I am not the inventor of logic.

How is it that when I use Nagarjuna’s logic it does not apply to God, who is above mere logic, but when you use Palamas’ logic it is relevant and applies? We cannot have a reasoned discussion, if one party rejects logic (= reason) as a valid method of argumentation.

If logic does not apply then I can say “God does not exist because the sky is blue”, and you can present no logical refutation of my statement because logic does not apply. In the absence of logic how do we tell true statements from false ones? In the absence of logic do we even have workable definitions of “true” and “false”? The two are concepts within logic - how can we define them in an area where logic does not apply?

To summarise, I am not denying the existence of unknowable things, I am pointing out that if you reject logic as applicable to God then the rules of our discussion have changed dramatically and most of what we have said, and many of the Church Fathers have said, about God is invalid because it relies on logic - and you are trying to rule logic out of the discussion. Abandoning logic has a number of deleterious effects, which I do not think will add anything of value to this discussion…

The strength of Christianity is it has a reasoned faith.

If logic does not apply to God, then we cannot reason about God, since reason is logic. How then can Christianity be a reasoned faith if it rejects reason/logic?

We continue to distinguish in God between who God is, and what He does. God is the Creator, whether He does anything or not. God creates. Thus God the creator is unchanging, whether He ever made the world or not.

How can you distinguish? You have rejected the Law of the Excluded Middle, so you have no reason to distinguish between God-contingent and God-absolute. Without the Law of the Excluded Middle God can be both contingent and absolute at the same time. Your rejection of logic destroys much of the basis of your own argument.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

You appear to have misunderstood my point. I was commenting on your saying “That law [Law of the Excluded Middle] doesn’t apply to God in the Christian way of thinking.” Here you are not saying that God is unknowable - though you do say that elsewhere - you are saying that logic does not apply to God, or at least that the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to God.

I have no objection to there being things that are unknowable, and the Halting Problem is a good example of such a thing. I agree with much of your post on the knowable and unknowable.

My point is that if God is not subject to the Law of the Excluded Middle then normal logic does not apply to God. All logical argument about God is immediately rendered worthless, because it is inapplicable.

No this is not true. We can logically reckon that there’s a limit to understanding God. I thought I’d made this point. I didn’t say ‘logic does not apply to God’, I said the logical limits you impose, with the application of a law of logic does not apply to God. This is quite a different point.

I am not the inventor of logic.

Nor a major practitioner

How is it that when I use Nagarjuna’s logic it does not apply to God, who is above mere logic, but when you use Palamas’ logic it is relevant and applies? We cannot have a reasoned discussion, if one party rejects logic (= reason) as a valid method of argumentation.

yawn Why is Palamas’ logic not relevant? I stated a logical reason for accepting that God can’t be known - else we’d be God. That is logic. You seem to think that it’s a take-it-or-leave-it proposition that every aspect of logic must be applied if I apply any aspect of logic.

To summarise, I am not denying the existence of unknowable things,

Then you argue against yourself. You accept ‘by logic’ the existence of something we can’t know anything about. You realise that logic here has established that there’s a limit to where logic can go.

I am pointing out that if you reject logic as applicable to God then the rules of our discussion have changed dramatically and most of what we have said, and many of the Church Fathers have said, about God is invalid because it relies on logic - and you are trying to rule logic out of the discussion. Abandoning logic has a number of deleterious effects, which I do not think will add anything of value to this discussion…

I am NOT ruling logic out. Maybe you can’t see the distinction.

I say “Logic has its limits in knowing God”
that is not saying “I can’t logically know anything about God”

The first IS USING LOGIC to know that there’s something’s about God I’ll never know. The second is what you think I should say, or am saying. And that’s not true.

If logic does not apply to God, then we cannot reason about God, since reason is logic. How then can Christianity be a reasoned faith if it rejects reason/logic?

By realising that logic has its limits.

For instance, science has its limits. Just because science can’t tell me about my soul doesn’t mean that science can’t know anything about me - because it can’t know one aspect of me.

Your whole objection is illogical.

To re-state. You accept a limit to logic, by knowing that something’s must be unknowable. You accept Turing’s Stopping machine can mathematically prove that there’s limits to itself. But you don’t say “We must now reject Maths because there’s something’s it can’t go beyond!”
And yet at the same time Maths can ‘know’ that there’s something beyond it.

Imagine if you would you were walking along and you came to an energy barrier that you could not sense what was beyond. You could sense the barrier itself. The knowledge that the barrier exists and the knowledge that what exists beyond it is beyond your knowledge are both true. The mere fact you can comprehend that what is beyond what you can comprehend (beyond the barrier) does not mean you must rule out comprehension altogether because you have come to limits of comprehension IN THIS CASE.

Same with God. I can logically deduce that there is God. I can logically know that there’s limits to my knowing God. I can logically know that by knowing these limits I don’t have to discard logic altogether, because by the very fact I was able to ascertain some things by logic, means that logic has its place.

You want to both use logic to accept logically constraints - such as unknowables, and yet dismiss Christians who have the same realisation with respect to God. You are thus wrong, because you argue against yourself.

Now you might want to argue that Palamas limits are incorrect, but you can’t say that there can be no limits whatsoever, based on logic.

 

[rossum]

No this is not true. We can logically reckon that there’s a limit to understanding God. I thought I’d made this point. I didn’t say ‘logic does not apply to God’, I said the logical limits you impose, with the application of a law of logic does not apply to God. This is quite a different point.

I was commenting on your saying “That law [Law of the Excluded Middle] doesn’t apply to God in the Christian way of thinking.” You are here saying that part of logic does not apply to God. You might have meant something different, because what you said originally had nothing about limits, just “doesn’t apply to God”. Would you prefer to rephrase what you said?

Why is Palamas’ logic not relevant?

Because Palamas used the Law of the Excluded Middle to reason that the same entity cannot be both non-contingent (God-is) and contingent (God-does) at the same time. You are saying that the Law of the Excluded Middle “does not apply to God”, hence by your statement, Palamas’ logic is incorrect because it makes use of a law that does not apply in this case. If the law does not apply to God then God can be both contingent and non-contingent at the same time, in your reduced logic there is no problem to resolve.

I stated a logical reason for accepting that God can’t be known - else we’d be God. That is logic. You seem to think that it’s a take-it-or-leave-it proposition that every aspect of logic must be applied if I apply any aspect of logic.

I suppose it would be possible to work through the body of logic and create a new logic that had all of the other existing rules except for the Excluded Middle. I just don’t think that it is worth the effort. Certainly it is easy to see that large parts of normal logical argument no longer apply if the Excluded Middle is excluded.

Then you argue against yourself. You accept ‘by logic’ the existence of something we can’t know anything about. You realise that logic here has established that there’s a limit to where logic can go.

Logic and knowledge are different things. Logic is a set of rules allowing valid manipulations of logical entities. Knowledge is a body of facts. The two are not commensurate. For example, this is perfectly good logic, but bad knowledge1 Paris is the capital of Germany.
P2 The capital of Germany is in Mexico.
C1 Paris is in Mexico.
Logic and knowledge are not the same thing.

I am NOT ruling logic out. Maybe you can’t see the distinction.

Again I say that your original statement did rule logic out in the case of God, at least it looked very much that way. Again, do you want to rephrase it?

I say “Logic has its limits in knowing God” that is not saying “I can’t logically know anything about God”

You specifically stated that the Law of the Excluded Middle did not apply to God. I have been going through some previous arguments to see what they looked like once any reference to the law was removed.

For instance, science has its limits. Just because science can’t tell me about my soul doesn’t mean that science can’t know anything about me - because it can’t know one aspect of me.

Agreed, but logic is not knowledge.

To re-state. You accept a limit to logic, by knowing that something’s must be unknowable.

No, you are conflating knowledge and logic. Thy are not the same.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

I was commenting on your saying “That law [Law of the Excluded Middle] doesn’t apply to God in the Christian way of thinking.” You are here saying that part of logic does not apply to God. You might have meant something different, because what you said originally had nothing about limits, just “doesn’t apply to God”. Would you prefer to rephrase what you said?

What’s the difference to you between saying…?
“The law doesn’t apply to God in this case”
and
“that part of logic doesn’t apply to God in this case”

Because Palamas used the Law of the Excluded Middle to reason that the same entity cannot be both non-contingent (God-is) and contingent (God-does) at the same time. You are saying that the Law of the Excluded Middle “does not apply to God”,
hence by your statement, Palamas’ logic is incorrect because it makes use of a law that does not apply in this case.

I didn’t see that he had done this. It’s you who split God.

If the law does not apply to God then God can be both contingent and non-contingent at the same time, in your reduced logic there is no problem to resolve.

I have no problem. Yours is that nothing can be in logic both something and the opposite. And yet you accept that something can be both known and unknowable. Something can be known TO A DEGREE, and also unknown. The laws of logic have limits. If Palamas applies them not to your likning then so be it.

I suppose it would be possible to work through the body of logic and create a new logic that had all of the other existing rules except for the Excluded Middle. I just don’t think that it is worth the effort. Certainly it is easy to see that large parts of normal logical argument no longer apply if the Excluded Middle is excluded.

But you accept these limits to the rule too!

Something can be described as undesribable. It is thus ‘described’ and also, not.

No, you are conflating knowledge and logic. Thy are not the same.

Am I? How do you apply the law of excluded middle, or any other law to something you have no knowledge of? Something beyond our knowing may be experienced by means other than logic. We can ‘know’ something, such as by emotion, or ‘experience’ and we can know that logic has its limits and it’s logical to know that it has its limits.

 

[Montalban]

You apear to have misunderstood my point
rossum

Probably because your point changed. At one stage you launched a passing shot at Christians discarding logic altogether.

I showed you that we can have limits to logic. And logically understand this.

You objected by contradicting yourself - acknowledging the existence, and knowledge of unknowables.

Now you’ve gone back to repeating a statement that Palamas is dealing with an excluded middle - based on your own attempts to divide God, when I noted that Jesus is (by Christian faith) both fully God and fully Man. There is no confusion for us here. You claim that there must be.

I believe that this is the summary of the argument so far.

 

[rossum]

I have no problem. Yours is that nothing can be in logic both something and the opposite.

No single uncompound thing can be both A and non-A. A compound thing, that is a composite that can be analysed into parts, can be A and not-A: one part is A and another part is not-A.

And yet you accept that something can be both known and unknowable.

If something is partly known and partly unknown, or partly knowable and partly unknowable, then is it compound and not unitary. I do not accept your equation that logic = knowledge, the two are separate as my example showed.

Something can be known TO A DEGREE, and also unknown.

Then that thing can be analysed into separate known and unknown parts. The excluded middle allows us to analyse anything that is both A and not-A into parts. If you say that the excluded middle does not apply to God, then we can say both “God is love” and “God is hate” simultaneously, without breaking any of the applicable rules of logic.

The laws of logic have limits.

Agreed. Our argument seems at least in part to be about how far God can be discussed using logic.

If Palamas applies them not to your likning then so be it.

Palamas’ analysis uses the Law of the Excluded Middle, and so is inconsistent with your statement that the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to God. Either Palamas is wrong or you are wrong.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

No single uncompound thing can be both A and non-A. A compound thing, that is a composite that can be analysed into parts, can be A and not-A: one part is A and another part is not-A.

Is God a compound thing?

If something is partly known and partly unknown, or partly knowable and partly unknowable, then is it compound and not unitary. I do not accept your equation that logic = knowledge, the two are separate as my example showed.

God is not fully known. He is partly known. He can be both known to be, and never fully known. He can be both knowable, and also unknowable.
I don’t say logic = knowledge. I note time and again that logic can tell us the limits of knowledge. Like Palamas you’re reading into something perhaps?

Then that thing can be analysed into separate known and unknown parts. The excluded middle allows us to analyse anything that is both A and not-A into parts. If you say that the excluded middle does not apply to God, then we can say both “God is love” and “God is hate” simultaneously, without breaking any of the applicable rules of logic.

God is love. If you want to say he is both love and hate, that’s up to you, but no one makes this claim.

I have stated. God is knowable and unknowable, and therefore the application of the law of the excluded middle does not apply in this case.

You seem to think that because of this one can also say God is love and also hate.

By your rationale: I cited earlier this example…
"So what is an example of something unknowable? Take the diet of a given person living in a village in the year 1300. “You may know on average what his diet was,” said Jesse Ausubel, the program officer of the Sloan Foundation. “But you cannot say what he ate on Dec. 15, 1300.”
chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/98/02/02/unknowability.2-2.html
Now because this diet is both ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ I can claim that the people ate something that was both ‘bread’ and ‘not-bread’ because the law of the excluded middle doesn’t apply in the first instance. Such arguments seem to be what you like

Agreed. Our argument seems at least in part to be about how far God can be discussed using logic.

And God can be despite the fact he exists beyond logic.

Palamas’ analysis uses the Law of the Excluded Middle, and so is inconsistent with your statement that the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to God. Either Palamas is wrong or you are wrong.

rossum

You keep making this claim of Palamas. I don’t see where you’re reading this. I keep mentioning this, but you just keep repeating the allegation. It seems to me you’re having this discussion for your own self-amusement. Continually repeating your claim about Palamas’ statements does no good to this discussion.

Why have you quietly dropped your general attack on Christians using logic?

 

[rossum]

Is God a compound thing?

If He is both known and unknown then yes.

I have stated. God is knowable and unknowable, and therefore the application of the law of the excluded middle does not apply in this case.

Or else the law applies and God is compound.

Now because this diet is both ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ I can claim that the people ate something that was both ‘bread’ and ‘not-bread’ because the law of the excluded middle doesn’t apply in the first instance. Such arguments seem to be what you like

The diet can be analysed into known and unknown parts. Or if you like you can use a multivalued logic, with its own set of rules: “it is 78.3% likely that the diet that day included bread.” What they ate on the day was either bread or not-bread, it was certainly not both. The uncertainty rests in our knowledge of what happened that day, not in what actually happened on that day. Those are two different things - one is uncertain and the other is not.

You keep making this claim of Palamas. I don’t see where you’re reading this.

I covered this in one of my earlier posts:

Because Palamas used the Law of the Excluded Middle to reason that the same entity cannot be both non-contingent (God-is) and contingent (God-does) at the same time. You are saying that the Law of the Excluded Middle “does not apply to God”, hence by your statement, Palamas’ logic is incorrect because it makes use of a law that does not apply in this case. If the law does not apply to God then God can be both contingent and non-contingent at the same time, in your reduced logic there is no problem to resolve.

Why have you quietly dropped your general attack on Christians using logic?

I was not attacking Christians using logic, my apologies for not making myself clearer. I was trying to say that if God is not subject to the Law of the Excluded Middle, then a lot of the logic that Christians use to talk about God is incorrectly used, because they are using that law when talking about God, to whom you say the law does not apply. I am trying to apply your statement about God consistently and examining the implications of your statement for other statements about God.

rossum

 

[christcnection1]

We certainly agree on this.

If that were the case then an eternal creating God implies an eternal creation. There is no time when God is not creating so there is not time when there is no creation. If creation is eternal then there is no logical requirement for a creator - there is no time when the universe does not exist.

I don’t see how any of this limits the Christian God. He created you and your ability to reason.

The Christian idea of the Fall is not useful since it is in the past, and so cannot be changed. I need something that I can change here and now.

Jesus came to give you the peace that passes all understanding. That’s both here, now, and in eternity.

Buddhists think that it is more useful to change ourselves than to change the world:“How much leather does it take to cover the entire world?”
“Enough for one pair of shoes.”

We believe both are part of His divine will, and He will perfect both, not merely improve it or eliminate a little pain.

Again that is no use to me - I need to find peace and happiness here and now. The Buddha attained nirvana forty-five years before he died. I want pie now, not pie in the sky when I die.

Peace can be found now if you trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and follow His commandments. You don’t need to wait years or even months.

Did you read my sig?

Your signature contradicts itself. If the truth is there is no ultimate truth then your statement is not true either.

If there is no ultimate truth, then no one here said anything truthful to anything. Your words and my words are then ultimately meaningless.

I don’t think your words are meaningless; they are just false.

There is ultimate truth and His name is Jesus Christ. You will either meet Him as a merciful savior or be separated from His love for all eternity.

 

[Montalban]

If He is both known and unknown then yes.

But he’s also be a non-compound thing would he not?

The diet can be analysed into known and unknown parts. Or if you like you can use a multivalued logic, with its own set of rules: “it is 78.3% likely that the diet that day included bread.” What they ate on the day was either bread or not-bread, it was certainly not both.

But you acknwoledge that law didn’t apply, therefore you’re happy for it to not apply, across the board.

So that because it didn’t apply insofar as the thing, whatever it ate could be known and unknown, you recognise that this non-application has itself an internal limit insofar as whatever they ate must either be bread or not-breat, and not both.

AND YET whilst we can say that God is known and unknown, and therefore the law doesn’t apply in that case you object when Palamas applies it in some instances. (you claim he does this)

 

[rossum]

But he’s also be a non-compound thing would he not?

If He is both known and unknown (or knowable and unknowable) then He must be compound and not non-compound. I apply the law of the excluded middle to everything, including God.

But you acknwoledge that law didn’t apply, therefore you’re happy for it to not apply, across the board.

You are the one who asserts the the law does not apply to God, not me. From my point of view the law applies to God. Hence my contention that God is compound.

So that because it didn’t apply insofar as the thing, whatever it ate could be known and unknown, you recognise that this non-application has itself an internal limit insofar as whatever they ate must either be bread or not-breat, and not both.

What was actually eaten on that day is subject to the law. What we know about what was eaten on that day is also subject to the law. These are two different things, X and what we know about X.

AND YET whilst we can say that God is known and unknown, and therefore the law doesn’t apply in that case you object when Palamas applies it in some instances. (you claim he does this)

I do not accept your contention that the law does not apply to God. To my way of thinking Palamas agrees with me since he makes the separation between God-is and God-does. If the law does not apply then the separation is useless since the unseparated God can be both contingent and non-contingent. By making the separation Palamas is implying that an unseparated God cannot be both contingent and non-contingent, i.e. that the law applies.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

If He is both known and unknown (or knowable and unknowable) then He must be compound and not non-compound. I apply the law of the excluded middle to everything, including God.

Not to knowables, and unknowables, but then contradicting yourself is a regulare happening here.

You are the one who asserts the the law does not apply to God, not me. From my point of view the law applies to God. Hence my contention that God is compound.

You are the one who says that the law must totally concern his being, yet you accept as in the case of what someone ate, exceptions, whilst the law is also applied.

You simply continue your illogic based on a sense that with God it just must be a certain way.

What was actually eaten on that day is subject to the law. What we know about what was eaten on that day is also subject to the law. These are two different things, X and what we know about X.

Exactly. So we can apply the law to God on certain aspects and not on others. You don’t even realise when you’re actually attacking your own dogmatic attachment to a ‘universal application of the law’.

 

[CrypticWritings]

Hi
One of our members on the Apologetics sub-forum has the signature:
The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.
I don’t agree with him and I say:
The ultimate truth is that there is Truth.
What is you opinion?
Thanks

Uh oh! I didn’t see that there was already a thread on this topic, here is mine:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177440&highlight=ultimate+truth
The problem is best addressed through philosophy, and that is what I was trying to get at.

 

[paarsurrey]

Uh oh! I didn’t see that there was already a thread on this topic, here is mine:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177440&highlight=ultimate+truth
The problem is best addressed through philosophy, and that is what I was trying to get at.

Hi

Well, I think, I have never read a book on philosophy except the one written by the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908:
alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q7.html
" The Philosophy Of The Teachings Of Islam " , and it is a good read.

Thanks