The Law of Non-Contradiction Requires an Epistemological Paradox

Rodney and Jason are engaged in a discussion regarding the so-called law of noncontradiction – that law which states that something cannot be both true and false.

I really don’t want to get into a full blown discussion here on ad homs and the such, but the law of noncontradiction is a paradox because it simply cannot be proved unless you have the law first. Therefore, it is not a law but an unproven postulation… which is defeated by God.

God is both immanent and transcendent. He is both here and not here, true and non-true. God is a contradiction. Further, life itself demolishes noncontradiction. By all rights, life should not exist and yet it does. The true laws which life prove false is rather quite remarkable.

Or, we could talk about the bumblebee.

Is it possible to have rationality without this so-called law? Yes, as some scholars have clearly shown. Dialetheism is possible. Let me show you what I mean.

Two simple, generic statements:

  1. It is raining outside
  2. It is not raining outside

Only one of those can be true under the law of noncontradiction.

Except…. that at some point, it is both raining and not raining. Let us take the physical realm first.

I am sitting in my house. Outside my house is the rest of the world. Somewhere out there it is in fact raining. If we are to restrict the outside to the immediate epistemological area, then and only then can we see the enforcement of the law of noncontradiction; however, we must then conclude that only our qualified epistemological area is the only reality present, presenting us a rather non-pleasant psychotic paradox which is an issue we cannot address here.

Let us consider the metaphysical realm. Immediately outside my home, it is not raining. Yet, it has rained in the past and will rain in the future. Being that Time is an illusion, we are only experiencing our epistemological reality in a temporal state which, in of itself, does not exist. Give that Plato believed that we are living in the cave of shadows and that life is but a mimesis of the Ideal, or rather that, designs above are the real and we the poor reflection. The idea, the frame, then, which exists is real. Therefore, we do know that it will rain once more outside my house, or in my qualified epistemological reality, and if we know that, then it is already raining although we are not experiencing it in our temporality.

I’ll sum this up quickly:

  1. The Law of Noncontradiction Disallows a reality to be true and untrue at the same time
  2. Given the nature of the world and the rest of the cosmos, we can prove that what is true in one approximation is not in another.
  3. To allow, then, noncontradiction is to require that one qualifies his or her epistemological reality into a self-sealing reality which then becomes a paradox in of itself. Therefore,
  4. There is no such thing as the law of noncontradiction unless it is restricted to only a well-defined epistemological reality set by the legislator and thus removes, further, the ability to test the law allowing that the law, as it is untested and thus unverifible, is both true (within the epistemological reality) and false (without the epistemological reality)

I love me some Aristotle and Plato, but if we consider them relevant to Christianity fully, then we should read Aquinas as authority, and if Aquinas, them we should swim the Tiber. 

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.