I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

No, it would mean that the law of contradiction did not apply in certain circumstances. It may well continue to work for most other things in logic.

Then it is not a falsification of it which you are speaking of. If there could be two contradictory true statements, then the common truth of those statements would be a violation of the law of contradiction, and those statements could not be said to presuppose the law of contradiction, a law that contradicts the statements themselves, a fact that denies the statements their possibility of contradicting the law of contradiction, since that requires the application of the law of contradiction, a law that is in direct contradiction with the statements and unapplicable.

---

(..)

I don't have to prove objective truth to exist. The fact I experience this world subjectively, and the personal experience and the evidence I have of its rationality and logi - is enough, it will have to do. Why? Because that's also all anyone else has access to, yourself included. We can only know things through our own subjectivity. Unless you can evidence me otherwise.

My argument nowhere disputed our subjectivity. The locus of my argument was the existence or non-existence of logic and truth as conceptual realities independently of what human minds think about it.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that (quoting EvF) "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exist independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.

---

Reading thru this thread a couple times to be certain, I notice you use a whole hellofa lot of words just to say "It's God! He can do anything!" or "Goddidit".

If you mean the words "actuality" and "potentiality", those words are referring to different kinds of ontological states of realities, one being a possible state of existence, the other being an actual state of existence. The state of potentiality, which we can also call latency, possibility, or tendency, without actuality, was used by Heisenberg to describe the probability function (in quantum mechanics) and actuality/actualisation to the observation and subsequent wavefunction collapse.