Quote:
Originally Posted by John21
Maybe:
https://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_...tradiction.pdf
Quote:
The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic
9. Conclusion
In summary, the argument runs as follows. The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God. p
This reminds me of a passage from one of my favorite religious authors, wherein he ponders an obscure line from Parmenides but in an attempt to reach a very different conclusion. The comparison between the two styles of theology (roughly cataphatic and apophatic) has always interested me.
It's long, but since I think lagtight has indicated to me that he isn't able to get to his argument right now, I'm going to excerpt it just because I like it:
1. The Principle of Reasonableness
Paradoxical as it may first sound, the way of thinking that has led to theism and helps characterize it is the Principle of Reasonableness. Something is reasonable when it is amenable to reason without having to be intrinsically rational. The God of theism makes reasonable the existence of the world and all its enigmas by throwing upon him all unresolved problems.... The theistic God does not shun rational proof of his existence.
Fides quaerens intellectum (faith looking for understanding) and
intellectus fidei (understanding of the faith one professes) are technical expressions of Christian theology. The famous Hebrew psalm: "Said the fool in his heart, there is no God" is another classical expression of the same.
The world of theism is, first of all, a world in which all the many principles of life are felt to be in need of a unified coordination. There is a Supreme Instance and a hierarchy among all beings. It may be that the Entity who sits on the top is idle or has left the throne empty, or perhaps there are many thrones, or we know nothing about the entire issue, since it may be all an illusion. At any rate, the pattern is the same in all these cases: the ultimate thinking. There is one single transcendent Principle that gives or should give cohesion to the entire Reality.... All in all, the theistic mythos is a genial attempt at rationalizing Reality--at finding it at least reasonable....
When metaphysical thinking sets in, God becomes the Supreme Being, the highest Entity, the Ultimate Person--at at the same time, problematic. When moral thinking comes to the fore, this Supreme Being becomes good, the Good Lord responsible for the kingdom. When anthropomorphic thinking takes the upper hand, the Deity acquires personal character, which gives rise to a personalized and personalistic cult. Ritual, prayer, worship, entreaty, all have a personal aspect.
The world of theism demands a universe in which there is a Supreme Ruler and lawgiver, whether this is called Nature, Reason, the Market, or even Democracy.... There may be no "God," but a "unified field theory" or an ultimate Law is still assumed to operate in the universe. Most of the problems discussed in terms of "religion and science" and "reason and belief" since the nineteenth century have been efforts to reconcile theism with modern science....
Perhaps we could use a single word to describe the essence of theism:
proto-archeia. One Principle, of whatever nature, even if unknown, unknowable, or pluriform stands at the top.
***
2. The Axiom of Non-Contradiction
One distinctive feature is the practically absolute primacy of the principle of non-contradiction--which Thomas Aquinas calls
sacrosanctum, which even the supreme Deity has to respect. Not even God can do anything that breaks this principle. This principle of thinking reigns supreme, and it is even considered to be the "condition for the possibility" of thinking. Having said "possibility," we have already indicated the vicious circle of the principle which grounds itself by saying that it is not possible to contradict this principle without applying, viz., presupposing, it.
This argument is feeble on two accounts. First, the proof is a vicious circle, it is a tautology. It is a postulate of the mind postulated by the same mind. Possibility means non-contradiction. Something is intrinsically possible when it is not self-contradictory. To affirm that it is not "possible" to contradict the principle without applying it means that it is not "non-contradictory" to contradict the principle--that is, it is contradictory to contradict it--which is a tautology that makes sense only by virtue of the principle of identity.
Second, there is no need for a holistic consciousness to contradict the principle and function properly. Thinking is more than calculating reason. Such a calculating reason certainly needs the principle, but we can proceed non-dialectically with our thinking without contradicting the principle.... Properly speaking, it is an axiom.
Here is where the strength and the limitation of the principle appear. The principle does not simply affirm that what is contra-dictory cannot be
said (a contra-diction), but goes further to deduce that it cannot be
thought--and even
cannot be. In other words, we convert a logical axiom into a
principium cognitionis (a principle of knowing).
What cannot be said, of course, means what cannot be meaningfully said--which is fair enough. Our principle is a logical axiom which postulates itself.... We need such an axiom for any diction. The first trait of the principle leads quite logically to the conclusion that not all
can be said--and therefore that not all is said. There is a realm of silence: apophatism.
The primacy of the principle extends itself not only to "diction," but also to thinking. It affirms that something contradictory cannot be thought because thinking is non-contradictory thinking and contradictory thinking is not thinking--which may be valid only insofar as thinking is a logical operation. The second trait concludes that not all can be logically thought--and even that not all is thought. There is the realm of mysticism: the ungraspable.
But there is still a third trait of the same axiom. It upgrades itself to a
principium essendi, a principle of Being. The possibility of saying is extended to the possibility of thinking, and this latter possibility of thinking is identified with the possibility of Being. What cannot be thought (because it cannot be said--being contra-dictory) simply cannot be. The principle of (non-contradictory) thinking is identified with the principle of (non-contradictory) Being.
The insight of Parmenides is the basic paradigm of theism.... Being is Thinking, that is, Intelligibility--not certainly for an individual mind, but as such. Here is the ultimate basis for the famous ontological proof of God's existence. A supreme thought would lead to a Supreme Being....
It is rightly argued that without accepting the validity of such a principle we would be condemned to solipsism and human communication would not be possible. Human communication, however, is not only logical.... As I have repeatedly stressed, philosophy does not need to be limited to an algebra of concepts.
***
The strength of theism is that it offers one single center for the whole of reality. This center fulfills a triple function: (1) it vouches for the unity of the uni-verse; (2) it provides us with an ultimate point of reference, which allows us not only to be able to dialogue with none another, but to appease our thirst for intelligibility; and (3) the fact that this center is transcendent or unknown/unknowable/inexistent makes room for human freedom and is the principle of moral order.
The weakness of theism consists in the fact that it tends to believe that it is a universal paradigm, that it's only alternative is total disorder, irrationalism, and a total loss of coherence...
(from
The Rhythm of Being, by Raimon Panikkar)
