Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you a Christian or do you just believe in generic god? Because if you are a christian, just realize that if the Jesus story were provable, the rest of us would convert tomorrow. If it was provable, there would be no jews or muslims because your religion would be obvious to all.

And if you are not a Christian then you realize that religions are made up and so too could god be.

The Jesus story? I must be confused, I thought that there were multiple stories about Jesus, including one that he visited India to learn from the Buddhist monks, and another that he traveled to the Americas to preach. Which one is it that you you think is the Jesus story?

By the way, oh he who thinks his brain controls reality, did you know that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any of the Pharaohs? In fact, there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, yet you seem to have a pretty firm belief in him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think about it.

I already told you that videos are for idiots, yet you keep posting them in response to my posts.

Think about it yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Its proven a naked assertion, not proven 'wrong.'

Its not ultimately justified that logic or knowledge requires an eternal mind.

You can support it, but not prove it, which is why as a premise it fails for building a case.

Oh, I'm sorry. You must have missed this again:

Though, in fact, the claim has been asserted by various authors of the Bible over the centuries, Kant was the first to formally assert the transcendental argument. It has never been falsified! It can't be falsified, a well-established analytical fact in academia. But more to the point, it's not impervious to falsification just because it's expression is logically coherent or just because the essence of its ultimate Object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe. If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.

Hence, the only potentially legitimate objection to the claim made in the major premise is the bald, logically unsupported assertion that it might not be true, ultimately, outside of our minds. Fine. But let us be clear: There is no independently verifiable ground whatsoever to believe this is true outside of our minds under the conventional standards of justifiable knowledge or the conventional standards of logic, which allow that the premises of presuppositional arguments are justifiable knowledge if proven to be logically valid due to the inescapable exigencies of human cognition.

. . . the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid. —M.D. Rawlings​

 

[G.T.]

Nope, sorry. Using logic doesn't prove that god is that logic's basis. That is hubris.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you a Christian or do you just believe in generic god? Because if you are a christian, just realize that if the Jesus story were provable, the rest of us would convert tomorrow. If it was provable, there would be no jews or muslims because your religion would be obvious to all.

And if you are not a Christian then you realize that religions are made up and so too could god be.

The Jesus story? I must be confused, I thought that there were multiple stories about Jesus, including one that he visited India to learn from the Buddhist monks, and another that he traveled to the Americas to preach. Which one is it that you you think is the Jesus story?

By the way, oh he who thinks his brain controls reality, did you know that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any of the Pharaohs? In fact, there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, yet you seem to have a pretty firm belief in him.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.

This is the logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the tzelem elohim (in English, the image of God, in Latin, the Imago Dei) and the Greeks called it the theiotes logos (the divine word). It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.

Classical logic is based on the three classical laws of thought.

1. The law of identity. For any proposition A: A=A
   
2. The law of non-contradiction. For all Not A=(Not -A)
   
3. The law of the excluded middle. For all A: A or -A

The problem is that the universe really doesn't care about what we think, even if we consider it to be universally true. As an example, there is a particle in physics called a majorana fermion. These particles have a rather unusual property, they are both matter and anti matter at the same time. In other words, each of these particles is both A and -A at the same time, which clearly violates the law of the excluded middle.

I refuse to accept anything as universally true simply because it makes sense to me, I need evidence to support it.

This does not violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion did violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.

The fact of the intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.

What is it?

The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.

The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.​

Rather:

Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.

Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.​

That's the whole of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else. That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.

The logical principle of identity begins with identifying what the thing is. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, for all A: A OR ~A is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not. It's your A and ~A that's off:

For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),


or


For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).​

This is not the first time I've answered this objection.

 

[dblack]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake. So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him. We literally see design wherever we look. When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source. The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.

Think about it.

Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.

 

[sealybobo]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake. So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him. We literally see design wherever we look. When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source. The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.

Think about it.

Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.

You mean if I'm dumb enough to believe that I'm a perfect candidate for Christianity?

 

[dblack]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake. So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him. We literally see design wherever we look. When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source. The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.

Think about it.

Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.

You mean if I'm dumb enough to believe that I'm a perfect candidate for Christianity?

Actually, I wouldn't put it that way. The smartest people I know are Christians.

 

[sealybobo]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake. So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him. We literally see design wherever we look. When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source. The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.

There is strong evidence they did. Or aliens. We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods. They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.

There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.

Think about it.

Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.

You mean if I'm dumb enough to believe that I'm a perfect candidate for Christianity?

Actually, I wouldn't put it that way. The smartest people I know are Christians.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nope, sorry. Using logic doesn't prove that god is that logic's basis. That is hubris.

Well, that's a change in tune, isn't it? Initially you had the hubris to think that the validity of the major premise couldn't be objectively and independently verified logically. Oops. Now you're hiding behind a discrete, potentially legitimate objection which is not justifiable knowledge, and the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever about the legitimacy of your rationally conceivable, though logically unsupported, objection. The point is that (1) any attempt to refute the claim in the major premise necessarily presupposes it to be true.

But more to the point: you're closing your mind to the implications of the fact that (2) the principle of identity is an intrinsically organic and universally absolute imperative of human cognition and to the implications of the apparent fact, given the overwhelming evidence of experience, that (3) it’s reliably and universally synchronized with the properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order: (4) it would seem that this must be bottomed on some transcendentally indivisible and immutable ground.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9877513/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9892385/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9909969/
.

 

[G.T.]

No, it doesn't presuppose it to be true. That's where you fail.

Also your #4 might be the weakest bit of bullshit this entire thread.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

And then there are those who compartmentalize their worldviews in such a way as to pretend that their utterly irrational and evidentially unsupported meanderings refute the overwhelming logic and evidence for God's existence: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 60 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Well, that's a change in tune, isn't it? Initially you had the hubris to think that the validity of the major premise couldn't be objectively and independently verified logically. Oops. Now you're hiding behind a discrete, potentially legitimate objection which is not justifiable knowledge, and the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever about the legitimacy of your rationally conceivable, though logically unsupported, objection. The point is that (1) any attempt to refute the claim in the major premise necessarily presupposes it to be true.

But more to the point: you're closing your mind to the implications of the fact that (2) the principle of identity is an intrinsically organic and universally absolute imperative of human cognition and to the implications of the apparent fact, given the overwhelming evidence of experience, that (3) it’s reliably and universally synchronized with the properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order: (4) it would seem that this must be bottomed on some transcendentally indivisible and immutable ground.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 44 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 52 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 60 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Theology deals with the what, the how and the why at the metaphysical level and, to some extent, at the empirical level, though not scientifically.

Philosophy, ideally, deals with the what (what is it?) at the rational level of apprehension and to a much lesser extent with the why. It tends to get into trouble real fast when it gets overly ambitious about the why or recklessly plunges into the how.

Science deals with the what in terms of physical properties and with the how in terms of physical processes/mechanisms, but many a scientist has forgotten that while trying to jam science into the philosophical and theological concerns of reality.

Ultimately, we need all three.
______________________________________

Aside from the few isolated instances in which I have touched on revelatory or theological issues, I've concentrated on presenting the what regarding the rational and physical evidence for God's existence that is objectively demonstrable precisely because it is universally apprehensible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Even if? Dayam, you are dumber that the chair you are sitting on.

I never made any claims about anything Jesus said or did, I just asked you which Jesus story you consider to be The Jesus Story. I then pointed out a simple fact, that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Julius Caesar, or the Pharaoh's. I don't understand why anyone that is would deny a fact that every competent historian on the planet acknowledges. I am not a religious zealot, so I guess my ability to get in the head of some assholes is limited.

So, again Which Jesus story is The Jesus Story? The one from the Book of Mormon or the one from القرآن الكريم?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This does not violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion did violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.

The fact of the intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.

What is it?

The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.

The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.​

Rather:

Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.

Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.​

That's the whole of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else. That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.

The logical principle of identity begins with identifying what the thing is. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, for all A: A OR ~A is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not. It's your A and ~A that's off:

For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),


or


For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).​

This is not the first time I've answered this objection.

This is exactly why I say all philosophy is bullshit. I used the existence of particles that are their own objects to show that the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself. You responded by claiming that, if something violates the laws of thought we wouldn't be able to see it.

FYI, the human brain is incapable of perceiving all sorts of things that exist in nature. We can, however, think of ways to prove that they exist by tracking them with things that we can imagine and build. The laws of thought may, or may not, apply to all beings that think, but they do not apply outside of our brains.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

I already explained that cognitive dissonance is an emotional response to conflicting ideas, why do you continue to insist it is something else?

 

[Justin Davis]

Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."

How many times do I have to explain that logic does not apply to the universe?

That said, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the rules of logic that something has to be quantifiable to be true.

But what logic are you talking about? The evidence tells me that our organic logic absolutely applies to our understanding of the universe. It can't be otherwise even if it's conceivable that the universe is doing things that are not consistent with our organic logic. We couldn't know that because we can't see things any other way even if it is true. This is why it's dumbfounding to me when you say there's no evidence for this. We have nothing but evidence for this and no one can see anything else but evidence for this. My problem earlier with the thing Foxfyre said was the way she said it because it implied that there was no absolute organic logic that is lined up with how things work in the world outside our minds. She doesn't really not see that once we got into what she reall means and sees. Logic and knowledge aren't the same things. Used right our organic logic does what it's supposed to do. That doesn't mean we always use it right or we don't make errors in our thinking. We do, usually because of pent of biases or because of bad info. But we also get to learn from these kinds of errors too, and it's good logic that shows us the errors later.

 

[Justin Davis]

That I can agree with! There seems to be something more wrong with Q.W.'s thinking about logic and philosophy as it relates to science but I can't quite put my finger on it. I'll have to think it about it more.

Perhaps the problem is your misunderstanding of the difference between logic, which is a structure of formal argument, and is often used in math to define proofs, which makes it useful in a limited way for science, and philosophy, which is based on the idea that the universe is not only explainable, but that humans can actually understand the why behind everything if they think about it the right way. Why do you think Aristotle insisted that God had to be perfect, and then was stumped when challenged to explain the imperfections of the world he lived in? Or why scientist/philosophers urged the church to suppress Galileo's writings because they challenged Aristotle's teachings about the perfection of a geocentric solar system?

But organic logic is not the formal structures of logical argument. See my last post. To me philosophy should just define things. I suppose to some extent if you can define something you can see get some idea about why it is or how it works at a rational level. I don't see anything wrong with that but we have to use science to test things. There's some overlap because science is based on the philosophy of science. My reading of Aristotle is different than yours. What I get from him about God is that God is perfect because he's not "divisible magnitude" while the "magnitude" (the physical substance of existence) is. But I guess he might have had some idea that the magnitude should be perfect too in some other way. I'll take your word for it because I apparently missed something there about what he expected. The only thing I can think about in that way is that we know that our perfect ideas about geometric forms cannot be perfectly replicated by us in the physical world. As for the establishment. They're always be with us but perfection has nothing to do with a non-geocentric solar system. It just is. The old idea was just based on his unaided senses and limited technology.

That's redundant. Edit: "unaided senses and limited scientific methods" is what I meant to say.

 

[dblack]

This does not violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion did violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.

The fact of the intrinsically organic principle of identity cannot be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.

What is it?

The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.

The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.​

Rather:

Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.

Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.​

That's the whole of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else. That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.

The logical principle of identity begins with identifying what the thing is. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, for all A: A OR ~A is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not. It's your A and ~A that's off:

For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),


or


For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).​

This is not the first time I've answered this objection.

This is exactly why I say all philosophy is bullshit.

I suppose that's easier.