Reasoning As A Universal Being

We will introduce a "universal being" (i.e. as if the Holy Spirit) which we will call "U" and will assume that U may reason so perfectly that anything true on the consistency of existence of another being may be reasoned to another. I.e. if P(cog_G(¬x)) then we immediately find P(cog_U(¬x)) => P(cog_x(¬x)).

Likewise ¬P(cog_G(¬x)) => ¬P(cog_U(¬x)) => ¬P(cog_x(¬x)) and x considers itself 'necessary'. We assume that U not only reasons perfectly but in a manner common to both perfection (God) and those beings that are able to conceive of a necessary being.

We have already had a brush with "U" in the treatment of the trinity transforming perfectly. We said that:

(H~G&p) & (G&p~H) >= super(H~G & G~H) using our prior equivalence relation '~'.

Whereas we can now state (cog_H(G&p) & cog_G&p(H)) >= (cog_G(H) & (cog_H(G))

Or we may state that if it is positive (i.e. Pos(...)) that cog_H(G&p) then Pos(cog_U(G&p)) which results in Pos(cog_G(G&p)) => G&p

Likewise Pos(cog_H(G&¬p)) then Pos(cog_U(G&¬p)) which results in Pos(cog_G(G&¬p)) => G&¬p

We should note that the "cog" operator has two distinct parts: There is the suffix 'x' in cog_x(y) as well as the operand 'y'. "x" is considered a concrete being, whereas "y" is an abstraction.

Alternatively consider the suffix as an "earthly" individual and the operand as "heavenly".

We will state that from the existence of U that 'x' in cog_x(G) may conceive of God (G) consistently if and only if U may do so also. Thus (cog_x(G)<=> cog_U(G)) => cog_G(G) => N(G) (i.e. we infer from Hartshorne's assumption that "perfection is possible".) So that a consistently conceived perfect being must exist necessarily if at all: Or that it is universally correct for "G~x", which entails or requires that cog_G(x) is consistent in that the "image" of God reciprocated by 'x' in the definition of "being" i.e. cog_G(x) is consistent with the reciprocated belief of the nature of 'G' Himself.

"x~G" => "U~G" if G is consistent. Thus G=>N(G) from Hartshorne's assumption with Anselm's principle.

Then by reflexivity from the definition of '~', we have "G~U" and "U~x" => G~x (transitivity) Which requires symmetry also from the definition of '~' leading to "G~x" <=> "x~G" or "G~y" universally for all 'y' including U.

What objections may we make?

U~G is consistent is part and parcel with G~U, for "U is a being" to God that engenders perfect knowledge of the consistency of 'G'.

U~x is consistent in that U may conceive of any "being" 'x' ('x' likewise able to reason) that with reason may in itself be consistent as with itself (whether x~x or x~U). We make no assumption as to whether U is necessary or contingent. Likewise it follows from U~x that both G~x and x~x (and y~x) for any G, x and y. There is no assumption that "U" is "impossible", neither is U's existence able to be contradicted.

The result then that G~G is completely consistent carries from the result that G~x implies in itself that x~G may be done so just as consistently, and if it is possible for U~G to show reflexivity then it is true that G is consistent for all 'x' that hold true to that "one correct God held by U". We would expect the transitivity of G~U and U~x to imply that G~x is consistent with G Himself. We may substitute G or 'x' for U and have a valid result from our definition of '~'. There is no contradiction in the definition of "being" whilst using our relation '~'.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page