Embracing (and Rejecting) Contradiction
Contradiction is widely seen as a sign of indecency. This makes some sense when we consider it as a matter of honesty. “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’” is very to the point. Insofar as rejecting contradiction means something like “always tell the truth,” then, it seems like a worthy problem to try to eradicate.
Things become more sticky when we begin to unravel the requisites of truth-telling. What if the truth itself is contradictory? After all, ‘contradiction’ isn’t much more than the psychological limit of the imagination. In physics this is the problem of dealing with things that don’t behave as our intuitions tells us they should. In theology this is the deep paradox of Christianity: the excessive nature of God.
In both cases (physics and theology) any account that wants to tell the truth must embrace contradictions while rejecting the desire to say too much. Saying too much, of course, contradicts the excessive foundation of the material universe and God.
In other words, while we should never see an embrace of contradiction as a reason to lie or become dishonest, we might admit that honesty demands that we embrace the excess of things that contradict our intuitions, i.e. the intuition that light beams ought disappear—not expand—when they are refracted and the intuition that God must be ‘good’ under my experiential terms of goodness.
Regarding politics, this simultaneous embrace and rejection of contradiction is scarce. We often find “gotcha” politics in the presumed taboos of contradiction. If a social order is anything like the the excessive phenomena we find in physics and theology—and I think it is—then perhaps we ought to apply the same rigor to our thinking about politics.
What this might offer is the ability to consider contradictions as potential cases for simple dishonesty or as evidence of the excess of the subject-matter. Or both. Or niether.
With regard to “life issues,” we see this confusion often. Many times we find this discussion breeding a great deal of uncharitable assumptions about contradictions. When we sift through the issues that become salient to questions of life and death we find that in order to tell the truth we need to embrace the beautiful tragedy of contradiction: the raw fact that life is messy and cannot be tamed or sterilized.
In this flux, we might begin to realize that reducing “life” into a mere political issue is itself anti-life and that attention demands that we focus on things one-at-a-time. Moreover, we might also begin to see that in order to treat the phenomenon—the persons themselves—with any sophistication we need to learn to seek truth by embracing the inherent contradictions without letting them make us complacent or dishonest.
When we embrace the contradictions of a world that is beyond our ability to order or comprehend, we might also find that we begin to reject the naive and dishonest opinions that seem to distort the portions of the world that we can see.
For exampe, with abortion we find a deeply complex situation. Something like a case of Russian dolls: a person inside a (more powerful) person. In a nation-state, we find the same layered situation: persons existing inside the deliberative power of a structure of persons and things.
In both cases the answers to these puzzling situations are at once easy and difficult. Easy because we must never contradict the sacredness that is the dignity of the human person. This is something we can never compromise. Difficult because persons and their communities are riddled with complexity that bends our intuitions and forces us to face the deep contradictions within.
Contradiction, then, may be our only hope for restoring some sanity into politics so long as it does not license us to do contradict the eros of truth, the imagus Dei itself. Embracing contradiction is a more—not less—rigorous way to conduct science, theology, and, I would argue, politics.
In more practical terms, when we begin to play contradiction as a card of obvious indecency, perhaps we will find that the contradictions that plague politics—especially when it comes to “life issues”—are a sign of fecund potential, not of corrupt hypocrisy. Or both. Or niether.
Sam
I agree with much of what you say here. Life is going to be contradictory. We will contradict ourselves. We will find ourselves in the midst of paradoxes which will be logically contradictory because logic is a human construct which can’t handle reality. And life transcends politics though so many people view it and all kinds of debates purely within the rhetoric of politics.
On the other hand, I do think it is good to point out inherent contradictions in what a politician says and does. This is not to say they cannot have a good answer — rather, it provides an opportunity for that answer to come forth.
Simone Weil–whom every serious Christian should read, despite the heterodox nature of much of her thought–said:
“Contradiction is the lever of transcendence.”
I love it.
I couldn’t agree more . . . or less.
Contradictions may be opposing forces that represent equal and opposite reactions to the same event. The contradiction may arise without awareness of the originating event. In quantum mechanics I read a physicist’s statement that we cannot know the smallest most elemental particle unless we know what has touched it in the past.
In classical Newtonian physics we have direct observation of the contradiction of cause and effect. In quantum physics the dynamics of cause and effect seemingly dissolve into an ever changing revelation of energy and light in its relationship to the materialistic mass.
From O’Murch in his work “Quantum Theology” he writes “In quantum mechanics, two subatomic particles can interact locally and the move very far apart. But the rules of quantum physics are such that eve if the particles end up on opposite sides of the univers, they must be treated as an indivisible whole…Nicolus Gisin and his colleaagues at the University of Geneva in 1997, (demonstrated) when two identical photons were emitted by a calcium atom in opposit directions…it was noted that if certain influences were brought to bear on one of the photons, then the second is also affected, although the latter may be on the other side of the moon.”
What may be the implication of this? It is huge. If anyone wants to venture on how this may relate to everyone being a member of the “culture of death”, including the outward structure and certain teachings in the catechism of the Catholic church feel free to respond.
Welcome back Sam.
Logic is a human construct? This is not true. Humans don’t create logic any more than we create morality.
And what seems like contradiction is often epistemological limitation, as in the cases of physics and theology.
Why overcomplicate needlessly?
Zach
Logic isn’t a human construct? Ok. Who created the system? Who showed us how to use it? Give me the non-human’s name! Seriously, the whole issue of limitation that you just pointed to is a limitation also to logic. There are all kinds of limitation because we are human. Logic is a good tool — but what we use for logic is a human construct every bit as math is. And we have learned that there are other ways to do maths. Human reason is not infallible and what it prescribes is not always correct — faith + reason because reason is a human enterprise. And reason itself can show its own limitations — even A=A ends up problematic (read Florensky sometime).
I suppose what’s needed is a close examination of the differences between “contradiction” “paradox” and “hypocrisy.”
These are related, but non-equivalent terms.
Logic comes from the mind of God Himself. We do not create the truth X=X, or X~=X!, we discover it.
If logic was a human construct, its laws could change. Its laws cannot change, therefore it is not a human construct.
Zach
While you are right in saying we observe something, but the human statement of it is not the same thing as that which we observe. More importantly, how do you know “if it was a human construct, its laws could change.” Actually many constructs do not change, but we often abandon the constructs. Ptolemy’s astronomical theory does not change, and yet it is a human construct based upon observation. We have, however, abandoned his ideas for others. The same with the rules of human logic. The more you study, the more you will see we have changed our observations and seen that they are indeed human constructs.
“If logic was a human construct, its laws could change. Its laws cannot change, therefore it is not a human construct.”
This is not obvious.
There are several different explanations for the “unchanging” nature of logical laws. One is that they are so abstract and content-free that they do not describe the universe, and so can’t ever be “falsified.”
Logic = Truth? Really?
Logic = Truth? Really?
It’s clear when people have not explored the subjects they pontificate on, isn’t it?
I know with certainty that the basic premises of logic do not change and that they cannot change. X can never equal not X. If I do not know this, I know nothing (and in fact you know nothing).
Maybe some human constructs do not change (the rules of baseball have been fairly consistent for a while), but this does not mean that they cannot change. Sure, Ptolemy’s understanding of the solar system was not amended by Ptolemy in his lifetime. But this is to miss the point. Ptolemy’s understanding could have changed, and so his “construction” could have changed. This is unlike the basic truths of logic entirely.
The fundamental laws of logic (and mathematics too!) cannot change even if we wanted them to. The more I study, the more I realize how true this is. Any time another logical principle is discovered it is not something invented by human beings, but uncovered as part of the natural order of reality.
This is not to say that our apprehension of these laws cannot vary with time and place, but that the logical principles themselves do not change.
“The fundamental laws of logic (and mathematics too!) cannot change even if we wanted them to”
Except the human understanding and construction of logic and mathematics change. Very much so. The whole point is that logic (as we discuss logic) is indeed a human construct, it has the limitations of the human mind involved, and so ends with all kinds of paradoxes when put in touch with reality. This is something basic.
In philosophical disputes, the principle of contradiction has been decimated by deveopments in analytic philosophy during the past century.
See Russell and the problem of negative existentials.
This is not to say that there is nothing but what we construct. It is to say that what is is beyond our ability to know comprehensively—the world is excessive.
“This is not to say that our apprehension of these laws cannot vary with time and place, but that the logical principles themselves do not change.”
This gives the game away. Should we ever reject a law of logic, we would just say that it is our understanding that has changed; what we thought was a law of logic turned out not to be.
But this merely begs the question.
Everything that we call “logic” now might change. If it did so, you could dig in your heels and say “Well then it wasn’t really logic. This new stuff we’ve found is!”
This might bring things back to the point of the post:
“After all, ‘contradiction’ isn’t much more than the psychological limit of the imagination.”
Now rhe question becomes how such a thing can be (ab)used by political discourse.
samrocha: “In both cases (physics and theology) any account that wants to tell the truth must embrace contradictions while rejecting the desire to say too much.”
You need to be much more precise, since what you say is ambiguous. Logical contradictions are anathema to physics: the presence of a logical contradiction in a physical theory simply kills it dead. Many physical theories (that describe and predict physical interactions most accurately) have deepened our understanding by eliminating what at first seemed to be unavoidable contradictions. Two physical theories can apparently be contradictory — but the physical universe itself shows no sign whatsoever of allowing any actual contradictions. A physicist can temporarily maintain a precarious situation where two theories contradict, but the goal is always to come up with a single theory that removes those contradictions. Because that’s the way the physical world works.
Karlson: “Logic isn’t a human construct? Ok. Who created the system? Who showed us how to use it? Give me the non-human’s name!”
Logic works the way it does because it reflects the way the physical world works. (Shouldn’t a theologian know who created that system?)
King: “From O’Murch in his work “Quantum Theology…”
I read (some of) that book, and quickly concluded that O’Murchu didn’t understand the physics, and so there was no particular reason to think he could offer any insight from it.
samrocha: “In philosophical disputes, the principle of contradiction has been decimated by developments in analytic philosophy during the past century.”
That’s false.
Logic works the way it does because it reflects the way the physical world works. (Shouldn’t a theologian know who created that system?)‘
If it reflects the way the physical world works let’s ask some questions: how good of a reflection is it (mirrors can be quite distorted); how do we get this reflection; how good does logic work; what about the spiritual world? And yes, we know God created creation; but that does not mean God invented the system of logic which we use — even if we observe creation for logic, we can easily see how humanity fails to make good observations and therefore this itself should be seen as a limitation.
This should be easily discerned by the limitations of positivistic empirical science.
Now some texts:
With deep conviction therefore I wish to appeal to everyone to seek peace along the paths of forgiveness. I am fully aware that forgiveness can seem contrary to human logic, which often yields to the dynamics of conflict and revenge. (John Paul II)
Here we see there is a logic which is human..
Jesus “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:6); he did not want to appear before our humanity, which is poor and fragile, in his overwhelming superiority. Had he done so, he would have obeyed the logic not of God but of the potentates of this world, denounced unequivocally by the prophets of Israel, like Amos, from whom today’s First Reading is taken. (John Paul II)
This shows that there is a logic “of the potentates of the world” which is “not of God.” So here we go and we can already see logic is not seen as a universal but, as the lower one is on the chain of being, the lower its logic is and more constrictive it is.
The Apostle exhorts us to non-conformism. In our Letter he says: we should not submit to the logic of our time.(Pope Benedict XVI)
This shows logic changes over time.
Paul himself, on more than one occasion had the bitter experience of the rejection of the Christian proclamation, considered “insipid”, devoid of importance, not even worthy of being taken into consideration at the level of rational logic. For those who, like the Greeks, see perfection in the spirit, in pure thought, it was already unacceptable that God should become man, immersing himself in all the limitations of space and time. Then for them it was definitely inconceivable to believe that a God could end on a Cross! And we see that this Greek logic is also the common logic of our time. (Pope Benedict XVI)
Again, this shows the problem of logic and its limitations.
At the end of our works, I can testify that Christian communities everywhere are journeying towards the Jubilee with youthful exuberance, reviving their threefold missionary, ecumenical and social commitment, knowing that this Jubilee shows and at the same time puts to the test the challenge the logic of the Gospel never ceases to launch to the logic of the world. (Cardinal Roger Etchegaray)
“Logic of this world” vs “Logic of the Gospel,” that is human logic vs God’s. Where did this human logic come from? Humans.
Paul: With regard to my need for more precision, you are right. Yet, I do note a basic distinction between truth telling and the needs to be open to the intuition bending thing that is truth.
As for the principle of contradiction, the problem of negative existentials—where an true proposition with a non-existent thing as its subject becomes somehow true thereby making the subject become the case, metaphysicaly—is formidable and reveals that the principle is too narrow to account for a rigorous understanding of metaphysics. But I left that out of this post because I am not trying to do analytic metaphysics here, I am trying to argue for a method for political discourse that is open to contradiction.
Sam I think I still do not quite get the bulk of your argument but certainly after Paul’s rather illuminating post to simply go on with the murky business of intellectualizing the “I want to have it both ways” is a bit weak. And all the analytical metaphysics in the world can not safe you here in my view.
“Logic works the way it does because it reflects the way the physical world works. ”
No, logic is one thing, physics quite another. Logic is not a reflection of how the physical world works, because it doesn’t presuppose any facts about the world at all.
“All bachelors are unmarried” is analytically true, even if there are no bachelors, or is no world.
But to bring the topic back around to what sam had in mind: again, it’s important to distinguish between a contradiction and a paradox.
When we hit a paradox, which is a seeming contradiction, we must check our premises to see where we have misdescribed the world, or our rules of inferences, which might be defective.
“As for the principle of contradiction, the problem of negative existentials—where an true proposition with a non-existent thing as its subject becomes somehow true thereby making the subject become the case, metaphysicaly—is formidable and reveals that the principle is too narrow to account for a rigorous understanding of metaphysics.”
I’m not sure this is the correct analysis of negative statements. A statement that is true when its subject does not exists, such as “All unicorns are white” or “No unicorns are white”, is said to be trivially true, that is, not true because of some fact about the world, but because it presents a limiting case of set theory: if there are no unicorns, then there are no white unicorns, and if there are no unicorns than all of them (namely zero) are white.
That these statements are true is a quirk of logic, not a fact about the world.
Henry Karlson,
The problem as I see it with samrocha’s posting is that he appealed to physics as an example where contradictions are embraced. But in fact the physics of the real world shows no signs of actual contradictions, and progress in physical theories is made by very vigorously seeking to get rid of contradictions, and not by embracing them.
I do not at all dispute that various logics can provide contradictions. The question at issue is whether it is ever useful to “embrace” these contradictions. Similarly to the case of physics, I am highly dubious that it is useful to do this. The quotes you provide give no support to the idea of embracing contradictions. For example, in the case of Jesus, is it not obvious who had the correct logic when comparing him with the “potentates of the world”?
Paul
I was pointing out the fact that human logic is just that — a human construct which has limitations. And when those limitations are met, we might have to accept contradictions/paradoxes which our logic cannot handle. Many of the great mysteries of the faith involve such dilemmas. That you (and others) denied the construction going on in human logic needed an answer.
My admitedly brief sutdy on negative existentials has led me to believe that there isn’t much to it, except as creating semantic issues. I don’t understand why we need to conflate the idea of a non-existant object (i.e. Pegasus) with the object itself. Seems to me we can say the idea of the object exists (such as ideas exist) but the object itself does not.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the subject (or point me in the right URL direction).
Personally I think a lot of the friction in politics is simply the lost art of argument. There is simply no engagement of another point of view.
Now there seems to be a few responses:
1. Stuffing someone into an ideological box so that their opinion can be dismissed.
2. Attacking a minor (and often tangental) point to the original argument.
3. Guilt by association, which is the worst offender right now.
I don’t think a shift in viewpoint needs to change. Just actually attempt to listen to an argument and counter-argue. We are too enamoured by our own opinions.
“I don’t think a shift in viewpoint…”
Should read “I don’t think we need to shift our viewpoint.”
Henry, I’d appreciate if you’d reply to the arguments I’ve made, rather than cite some other philosophers. Sam, I wish you would do the same. I’d also appreciate if you could refrain from saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I could say the same thing about you guys, but I assume you just don’t really feel like having a conversation, but rather just enjoy asserting your superiority.
Sam, you write: “a[n] true proposition with a non-existent thing as its subject becomes somehow true thereby making the subject become the case”
As you’ve stated this it does nothing to the law of identity. This does not disprove that a non-existent thing is not identical to the same non-existent thing so conceived. I’ll look for the argument as advanced by Russell but I’m not hopeful it will be at all convincing. While I’m not familiar with the papers or texts you reference directly, I know enough to know that analytic philosophy was influenced greatly by logical positivism and logical positivism was dead wrong.
As to the putative point of your post: politics doesn’t and shouldn’t be open to contradiction. Politics is too practically oriented to be concerned with abstract dilemmas. Theoretical contradictions always get resolved one way or the other in reality.
Henry, I’d appreciate if you’d reply to the arguments I’ve made, rather than cite some other philosophers.
I actually did.
But since you had other things like “X can never be not X” well, as a Christian a contest: Jesus. The hypostatic union itself shows an X ( the person who is God) who is not X (man). Same person is God and not God at the same time.
This interesting and thoughtful article prompts me to ask the following: What exactly do your assertions regarding contradiction, which I believe in philosophy is described as the law on non-contradiction, which law was proposed by Aristotle and adopted as true by St Thomas Aquinas Doctor of the Church, imply if anything regarding those same teachings of Aquinas, on this or any other issue for that matter? He proposed Artistotle, and this law in particular. as a solid foundation for the philosophical foundation upon which Catholic theology and teaching was to be developed. He utilized the works of Artistotle in support of numerous arguments. Is it time to throw Artistotle and perhaps St Thomas both overboard, or at least look to them no further for wisdom on matters of reason and faith?
St Thomas by the way is quoted no less than 60 times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992 more by far than any other teacher.
Sam’s comments above regarding the demolition of the principle of contradiction by Russell(Bertrand I presume)suggest to me at least by implication that he questions the reliability of St Thomas Aquinas as a Doctor of the Church, and would seem to place him quite possibly in opposition to the Church which holds according to the teaching of Pope Pius 11th, that “The Church has adopted his philosophy as her own.” (Studiorum Ducem.)
Am I missing something or mischaracterizing something? Have the teachings of Bertand Russell,on matters of philosophy supplanted that of St Thomas and if not generally have they done so on the point at issue in this commentary?
God Bless.
Paul, Be specific. Otherwise I do not know what you know about physics or don’t know about physics.
Hello all. I don’t have time to slog this one out, but I would like to make a few replies.
Zak: I am sorry if you feel I implied that you don’t know anything. I don’t feel that way at all.
On Neg. Existentials: I admit that the issue in this vein does have the scent of semantics. I think the issue is better looked at empirically in some way—phenomenology does a good job of this, I think. However, neg. existentials do give a small opening to where this rubs out.
On physics: I don’t know enough and if the example in the post is taken too far, then, it will only expose my ignorance on the subject. I simply think physics is cool because it surprises our intuitions and makes us entertain things that previously seems contradictory.
On paradox and dialogue: I agree very much that both recoveries of rigor to political discussion would go very far. I also think that re-adjusting our view of contradiction might help too.
On St. Thomas: I am not a Thomist. As far as I know not being a Thomist is not a qualification for heresy or opposition to the Church. I think he ought to be a Doctor for his contribution even though I feel it has some philosophical problems.
On B. Russell: I actually have little use or affection for him either. His dialogue with Alexius Meinong on this subject, however, is one I find very fruitful for my own ontological research.
Blessings to you all!
In response about St Thomas Aquinas:
St Thomas Aquinas is a good example, but one must remember what he was an example of and the kind of method he embraced. He was not an end in to itself, nor infallible. When St Thomas got the immaculate conception wrong, that doesn’t make him no longer valuable nor a Doctor of the Church. But we must understand being a Doctor of the Church, or an example to emulate, or someone to learn from, does not mean we must follow through and agree with his philosophical positions. Much of what he said was wrong; we know that. He himself would be the first to admit it. He wasn’t infallible. More importantly, if you study St Thomas carefully, he also understood the limits of human logic when talking about the mysteries of the faith; there is a reason why he engaged analogies.
Russell’s disagreement with Meinong represents a break with idealism. . . which is a good thing in my opinion.
I’m not sure Russell ever “demolished” the law of non-contradiction. In fact I’m pretty sure his definition of a valid inference relies upon it: a valid inference is one where the premises and the denial of the conclusion contradict one another.
I would hope that Catholicism is not based on Thomistic or Aristotelian logic, since there have been many improvements and refinements in logic over the past two hundred years.
Probably the best short introduction to these issues concerning the relationship between logic and metaphysics is W.V.O Quine’s “From A Logical Point of View.”
phosphorious: “Logic is not a reflection of how the physical world works, because it doesn’t presuppose any facts about the world at all.”
I didn’t claim that logic is only a reflection of how the physical world works. Clearly logic can work in circumstances other than the particular physical world we are surrounded by. However, logic has been developed because it is superlatively useful in the world we are in. (For example, dropping the law of non-contradiction leads to various logics that are extraordinarily difficult to find good uses for.)
Henry Karlson: “Logic is a human construct”.
It depends what you mean. Someone might say: “A table is a human construct”. And for many purposes that would be true. Yet the possibility of making a table is crucially dependent on all the parts making up a table — right down to the atomic and sub-atomic properties of matter. If those properties were radically different, then perhaps making a table would not be possible. Similarly with logic. Humans have constructed logic because it works extremely well in the world we are in. And the world we are in is not a human construct.
Henry Karlson: “The hypostatic union itself shows an X ( the person who is God) who is not X (man). Same person is God and not God at the same time.”
That was a seeming contradiction resolved long ago, by Jesus being seen as one person with two natures. Logical contradiction resolved, not embraced.
Ronald King: “Paul, Be specific. Otherwise I do not know what you know about physics or don’t know about physics.”
I have a doctorate in physics from Oxford, and have published in Nature and ApJ. Good enough? I don’t propose to go back and find out what O’Murchu got wrong. I just remember being sorry I had paid for the book. It’s not actually uncommon for theologians to get physics or astrophysics wrong, and make some very off-target deductions.
That was a seeming contradiction resolved long ago, by Jesus being seen as one person with two natures. Logical contradiction resolved, not embraced.
Actually that does not solve how the same person is two contradictory things at one time. Indeed, this is one of the basic mysteries of the faith which is recognized as being beyond human reason. Yes, we know he has two natures, but we also know one person is God and not God at one time. That is the point. Logic fails. It’s a human construct. Logic can’t bring or create the truths of revelation. Go back to Vatican I. Reason is limited.
“I didn’t claim that logic is only a reflection of how the physical world works. Clearly logic can work in circumstances other than the particular physical world we are surrounded by. However, logic has been developed because it is superlatively useful in the world we are in.(For example, dropping the law of non-contradiction leads to various logics that are extraordinarily difficult to find good uses for.)”
This is not entirely true. Multivalent logics, where there are more than two truth values, do have uses. These logics have a long history as a matter of fact and are perfectly reputable objects of logical inquiry.
But the point is that we can reject the platonic notion of logic being rooted in some extra-mental, extra physical reality. . . and this would not impact catholic faith one bit.
“Actually that does not solve how the same person is two contradictory things at one time. ”
That’s exactly what it does. The paradox is resolved when we realize that when we count the persons we come up with one, but when we counthe natures we come up with two.
What a “nature” is, as opposed to a “person” is a question that takes us beyond logic.
Phosphorious
No, it doesn’t solve how an X (a person) can be both A (God) and not A (God) at the same time if one follows the “law of non-contradiction.” The point is just because you say “that’s natures not person” doesn’t remove the fact that the person is both A and not A at the same time. It’s recognized in theology that this is still a difficulty and remains a “mystery” because it transcends human logic, even if we can construct a description.
Paul, I guess it depends on what you are investigating and who is doing the investigation and the hypothesis you attempting to prove or disprove.
Henry Karlson,
Two true statements:
- A person is God if that person has a divine nature.
- A person is human if that person has a human nature.
It follows, with no logical contradiction, that Jesus can be both God and man.
If we further specify that “is not God” is meant in the sense that:
- A human is not God if they have only a human nature.
Then it still follows that there’s no logical contradiction — even if it all the mystery of it remains. Just because the understanding of something transcends human reasoning, it does not follow that it transcends logic.
Paul
Your statements are incomplete. Of course, if you make incomplete statements which remove the contradiction there is no contradiction. But that doesn’t help anyone.
“No, it doesn’t solve how an X (a person) can be both A (God) and not A (God) at the same time if one follows the “law of non-contradiction.” The point is just because you say “that’s natures not person” doesn’t remove the fact that the person is both A and not A at the same time. ”
But then doesn’t this simply suggest that the law of non-contradiction doesn’t always apply? Here we have a counter-example.
I had thought that the point of this thread was that “Logic” somehow limits what can actually be.
Of course, God can transcend logic. . . but then of course he could have created a universe that transcends logic.
My only point is that the “universal nature” of logic is due to its being content free, and not to its being based in some reality “out there.”
“But then doesn’t this simply suggest that the law of non-contradiction doesn’t always apply?” That’s the point. The law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply because it is broken and transcended. God not only “can” but does transcend logic; that is the point. The incarnation has always been a problem to human logic. Of course we can describe it and understand it on a human level; but if one starts dealing with logic, you have things like “Jesus wills to eat and doesn’t will to eat” going on. That’s because Jesus has two wills. One person, willing two things which contradict each other at the same time. The incarnation transcends logic and therefore breaks the constrictions of such logic.
Henry Karlson: “Your statements are incomplete.”
I actually stated what “is not God” should be taken to mean. You didn’t, and only ended with a contradiction because you left that out.
Henry your mistake is thinking that there is necessarily a contradiction between something that is X and something that is not X. This is not the case and this is why God is not a contradiction.
The law of non-contradiction is not broken. This would mean there is contradiction in God and this is not true. It may be transcended in the sense that it’s almost superfluous and silly to think of the possibility of contradiction in God, but not really in any other sense.
Your effort to remove logic from the realm of truth really confuses me.
Henry, God is infinite spirit. Jesus is one Divine Person with two natures, human and divine. There is a difference between nature and personhood. They are not identical, and thus there is no contradiction.
You are arguing that there is contradiction in God. Why?