Deductive Proof of a Rational God

Have you ever noticed that everyone on earth accepts that if something is true, then its negation is false? Do you think this is learned behavior? Or is it an accepted truth that comes prior to learning -- a "first-principle"?

What do you think it would mean to "learn" if we did not grant universal and timeless non-contradiction before learning anything at all?

Married Bachelors

Let's say that I discovered that my friend Bob was a bachelor. What have I learned about Bob? I have learned something about his marital status -- namely, that he does not have a wife.

Now let's say that I discovered that my friend Mark is married. What have I learned about Mark? Again, I have learned something about his marital status -- namely that he does have a wife.

Finally, I discover that my friend James is a married bachelor. What have I learned about James?

Wait a minute -- a married bachelor? What does that mean? Does he have a wife or does he not have a wife? What have I learned about James? Have I learned something about his marital status?

No, I have not. I know nothing at all about James' marital status because the concept of a married bachelor is contradictory and thus meaningless.

Indeed, the discovery of a married bachelor now calls into question my learned knowledge about both Mark and Bob as well. Even though I learned that Bob is a bachelor, I now realize that Bob being a bachelor is meaningless, since James is also a bachelor, and not-a-bachelor at the same time and in the same way. If James can be a bachelor and not-a-bachelor, perhaps Bob can be not-a-bachelor even though he is a bachelor. Bob may have a wife, even though he has no wife, since apparently that is the case with James.

The introduction of contradictions into our thinking destroys any possibility of knowledge. Even things I thought I knew no longer have any meaning, since even if they are true they may be false. Why not -- if contradictions are viable statements of truth?

First-Principles

This demonstrates that we can only learn -- we can only gain knowledge -- if we already grant that contradictions are false. Otherwise we could learn nothing at all since all propositions, all concepts, all ideas would be utterly meaningless to us. Accepting universal, timeless non-contradiction is therefore not a learned behavior, but rather, is in fact a "first-principle". It is something that everyone believes ought to be done before they learn anything at all. We could not learn anything at all if we thought it possible for things to both be-and-not-be at the same time and in the same way. All thought would be utterly meaningless. Thinking simply would not happen.

So where does this idea of universal, timeless non-contradiction come from?

If a belief is generated without reason, as this one might initially seem to be, then it is definitively irrational.

But all our claims, all our beliefs, all our conclusions presuppose this assumed proposition of universal and timeless non-contradiction! If a first-principle like this is truly irrational, then all our beliefs are based on irrational assertions! All of our beliefs are ultimately irrational if there is absolutely no reason behind this human first-principle.

Hold that thought for a bit. We will return.

Children's Toys

Do you consider the conclusions of a calculator to be rational? When we ask a calculator what 2 + 2 equals, do you get a response you consider rational?

How about a Magic-8-Ball? When we ask a Magic-8-Ball what 2 + 2 equals, do we get a rational response?

If a calculator can come to rational conclusions, but a Magic-8-Ball cannot, what do you think makes the difference?

I would like to suggest that the difference between the two is the presence and intent of the rational creator of the device. The calculator was given rational first-principles by its rational programmer. The Magic-8-Ball, on the other hand, was not.

My point in this example is that a first-principle need not be irrational by definition. It can be rational, but only if it is created by a rational creator.

This brings us back to the thought above.

The Deductive Necessity of a Rational Creator

Our first-principles, if not created by a rational creator for the purposes of enabling us to come to rational conclusions, are just as irrational as the claims of the Magic-8-Ball.

And this leads us to our conclusion: if rational thought really is possible among humans, then humans have a rational creator.

The following deductive argument can thus be formed...

Premise 1: Any belief ultimately formed by non-reasoning causes is ultimately believed without reason.

Premise 2: If there is no god, every belief is ultimately formed by non-reasoning causes.

Conclusion: Therefore, if there is no god, every belief is ultimately believed without reason.

I would appreciate feedback on what you think of the deductive syllogism above. Does it prove the existence of God? If not, where and how do you think it fails? If so, do you find it to be of benefit?