[The previous series, 109, can be found [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/jrps-bite-sized-metaphysics-series-109/475/1]here. This series, 110, picks up with the topic arrived at the end of the previous series. An index with links to all parts of the work as they are posted can be found here.]
[Entry 1 for “Contradictions And Paradoxes”]
I have explained why I reject a flat presumption of our inability to reach true and useful conclusions about the existence and character of God through reasoning: in essence, I reject the presumption because it involves (one way or another) self-contradiction.
I have also explained why I reject much (though not all) of circular Presuppositionalism theories: in essence, I reject some of their claims because they are also self-contradictive. I do recognize some real usefulness in such procedures, (although I do not consider such methods to be the best tools for the goal of my book.) But at the same time, I allow such methods have some real usefulness precisely because there are certain (limited) goals of such methods, which are not self-contradictive! I am willing to consider the feasibility of the parts which do not gut themselves; but I reject the parts which do.
However, we live in a society of people who not only accidentally produce self-contradictive theories (no ages and topics are free from that risk), but who often positively embrace contradictions (ditto, unfortunately). I find these positions in the theories of the religious and non-religious alike. Worse, I find people on both sides who vocally reject contradictions, yet who go on to intentionally (not accidentally) foster them in order to ‘bolster’ their point.
I call this ‘the 6=16 paradigm’.
I do not accept the 6=16 paradigm. I hope I do not have contradictions in my own work; but if I do they are there by accident, not by design. I think nothing real is gained by including them or resorting to them; rather, the worst kind of loss ensues.