Dear kosta, one can argue that anything that is expressible in human language is a human construct or "model." No physicist has ever “seen” an atom, let alone a sub-atomic particle. Yet there is evidence that there are such things; and so if we need to talk about them, we have to try to "model" them in such a way that they can be captured in language. Otherwise, communication about them cannot take place, and knowledge does not increase.
We do the best we can, as finite, contingent creatures to make our knowledge of the world comport as much as possible with actual reality; but our observational perspective is necessarily constrained by our relative position in space and time. And so we humans see "as if through a glass, darkly"....
My point about Aristotelian formal logic is that the Third Law is the tool of choice if you are dealing with an either/or situation: Is something true or false? Is this a case of “Yes” or “No?” Or 0/1? This is a style of thinking that is eminently suitable in digital applications: Computers, after all, are structured to make “either/or” decisions. And so to the extent that we use computers to analyze reality, this type of logic becomes more and more reinforced as the tool of choice for understanding reality.
Actually it was Einstein who said, “If two descriptions are mutually exclusive, at least one of them must be wrong.” But not all problems are reducible to “either/or, true/false, Yes/No” criteria. Many problems we encounter actually involve questions of “both.” To apply the Law of the Excluded Middle in such cases forces a reduction of reality to what fits the model, which obscures (or obviates) an important sector of the reality we are trying to understand.
For instance, it makes no sense (to me at least) to bring the Third Law to bear on what constitutes human nature. Human beings have been understood since classical times as constituted by (1) body and (2) soul, or spirit (or psyche or nous -- different terms referring to the "spiritual" aspect). That is, they are constituted by a complementarity: This is not an “either/or situation”; this is a case of both. Just as with the complementarity of particles and waves in quantum theory. You can study the body part, and you can study the soul part. But you can’t eliminate one of them and get a “complete description” of the human being.
Which is why to regard the human being as simply a physical entity gives an erroneous picture which, if taken as the basic presupposition regarding man (as has been done as you know, for instance, by Darwin and Marx, et al.) will lead to a reduction of man that gives a false picture of what he is, in his essential nature. You get that "wrong," and anything you build based on the false picture will also be "wrong" (e.g., the "dictatorship of the proletariat").
It seems to me that any complementarity (or set of apparently mutually-exclusive yet paired components if I might use that word here) is a given in the nature of things that depends on a higher principle for its reconciliation, which provides the essential context that places them into their mutual, synergistic, dynamic relations. The Third Law wrongly applied obscures the contextual reality in which events happen.
So there is logic, and then there is logic: But God is not bound by logic; indeed, God’s Truth (from our very human point of view) may be entirely illogical; but it is God’s Truth; and therefore, it is THE truth whether it is “logical” or not.
In short, God is not subject to logic. Logic is a human creation.
I think you recognize this, for you said: “…we cannot show how big is love.”
Exactly: Logic is no help there.
Well, just my two cents FWIW.... Thank you kindly for writing!
Well said, short sweet..
Logic is a language word used show humans trying to understand logic.. As true as anything ever said is Tom Clancys meme "The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction HAS to make sense".. Because truely reality does not HAVE to make sense.. Reality has to impress no one..
Same with God.. God(the real one) has to impress no one..
A God that does have to impress anyone is probably not God..
Even more reason that faith is a spiritual qualifier..
Excellent, as usual.
Thx.
It's late, but i will answer you (against my better judgment), because otherwise I will be thinking about it and not get much sleep.
No physicist has ever “seen” an atom, let alone a sub-atomic particle. Yet there is evidence that there are such things
Sort of. Our models are an expression of our limited perceptions. Ptolemy's navigational system contains "epicycles" and he would have told you that, based on his scientific work, they exist even though we can't see them.
But they exist (in fact, by necessity) only in his model. As long as his model is assumed to represent reality, the epicycles are real as well.
The epicycles are of course the result of his observational position over a period of time. The data show planets moving in such a way that they slow down, stop, loop and continue. The "reality" of these epicycles are such that they can be"detected" and predicted with utmost precision (repeatability, precision, predictability), which also serves as "proof" that the model is "real."
After all, the system (based on the geocentric model), still "works," so it "must" be real. Ptolemy's work contains scientific method that we use to this day to "prove" various working models as "real."
Your complementary theory, besides being based on human perceptions and logic, only indicates that we cannot grasp the Creation.
We can only think of a wave or a particle, one at a time; saying that energy is (radiant) and bound (matter, particle) at the same time is a paradox for our finite intellect, very likely to lead to insanity.
It really doesn't matter what we grasp, for none of it is of any consequence to the Creation. We are a bunch of primates with souls, wholly incapable of intellectually absorbing what we are faced with, with or without Spirit.
The Spirit doesn't give us facts that we can use to make a "working model." The Spirit tells us that love is not of this world, that we can know God in our hearts but never intellectually. That knowledge is without words or "working models." :)
Thank you. PS A scientific "working model" or theory is like a game of Monopoly: a simplistic, indeed bad, imitation of what the real world, known and discernible only to God, is really like.