  |
|
Metaphysics
|
 The UAA Is Unique Once again, given the UAA:
I first note that in the chain of the last example, the "master UAA" at the top of the chain confuses the entire chain. I also note that the UAA may be equivalent to the statement of one axiom. A2) God does not exist. Then as the entire chain is "not God" as God is at the very top, only God of His own person may answer whether He Himself is God or not and therefore understand the UAA! (If it be true or false.) Then is the UAA unique? It indeed is unique if it only applies for deciding whether the whole chain is confused by the UAA except in the case of God Himself who alone is not confused over His own necessary existence! It follows that A2 and A1 together confuse the whole chain, none of which may prove God's existence but for the "Most High" Himself who may only do so, not with the UAA but with His own person alone. (There is no logical proof of the one form or essence that is the UAA - though it is an ontological argument - also unprovable if there is any truth in one axiom as A2 which truly fulfils all the criteria for the UAA.) So, the UAA may have a unique solution in merely the axioms A1 and A2. But is this solution unique for God Himself at the top of the chain? It must be shown that any other logical argument of the same form as the UAA must be provable, so to apply it as if it were capable of being understood only at the very top of the chain only begs the question of God's own existence further, so the minimal argument of A1 and A2 is then also as an axiom of any other solution confusing the whole chain, and is that of every UAA supposedly above it in the chain. Now though, there is more trouble to be found, for if the whole chain is, overall, confused only by the UAA found confusing it at its very top - at the Most High - and confuses all that cannot then understand the conjunction of A1 and A2, being unable to "know God" by A2 then there is certainly no God in the chain that is not confused by both A1 and A2, leaving only the top of the chain which is God Most High in a state to answer without confusion, were that even possible. Clearly, the individual "God" in A2 is found at the very top of the chain. Then any UAA that confuses "God" confuses the whole chain. If the UAA is "true" then nobody can supply proof of God's existence but for God with His own person. Yet then, it is the case that A1 and A2 also confuses God Most High only if A2 is truly the "master UAA". Is this the case? There is no proving the UAA as in A2 not as the UAA, for it fits like a glove. If logic cannot prove A2 false on its own merit then God is logically confused in this chain. (There must needs be another chain on some other principle.) So, does the master UAA restrict God's ability to prove Himself God? Not with His person! God must, then, be the one God of which the chain is confused by the essence of confusion, or the "Godlike-ness" of the UAA's most "prevalent" form at the top of the chain, true "almost everywhere". Then confusion for God is to prove true or false that single axiom A2, for then, God is simply present as if a question and not as a being. So, God may yet possibly exist and the proof must be effectively unique: for given that the one UAA in A2 (with A1) is unable to be communicated by a God that exists (stating He does not exist by A2 alone) to a chain unable to correctly understand Him, as He also exists, and is also stating A2 to the entire chain, He, is then found equivalent to that same confusion: the chain has been confused by one statement, and it is therefore a unique solution, as to add to the axiom A2 is to provide evidence begging the question further. (More information would yet assume there exists a more universal or more prevalent and thus "greater" UAA.) On the other hand, any attempt to prove the converse that there is no God by using the one form of the UAA to do so by assuming the negative of A2 is to confuse God's perfect mind - whom is unable to rationally conceive of His own non-existence, a form of "I think therefore I am", one form entailing that there is no such axiom to God that will disprove God's own existence. God, Himself reasoning thus is strictly limited to only the correct, which must then be simply that one axiom A2 alone, as no correct line of reasoning on top of the statement "God exists" will disprove God's existence to God Himself using His correct reason, as His mind is perfect. Then, the UAA is unique and at the top of the chain in its simplest form of A2 (and it then has no merit). God may possibly exist. |
 |
|
