Jon: Quick little ontological conundrum for ya: What is the basic problem with definitions?
Brian: They are not universal. People define their own terms… Am I close?
Jon: It’s even more basic. All definitions beg the question. A statement of identity is circular. It cannot be justified. If someone asks, “Does God exist?” it is actually an impossible question to answer without arguing in a circle. For that matter, any question of identity is impossible to answer. The closest you can get is, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” But no non-Christian would accept that. He would accuse you of begging the question. And he would be right.
The remarkable thing is this. We know nothing in itself. Even more, it demonstrates objectivity doesn’t exist. At all.
Even the definition of objective is subjective. But if objectivity is illusory, it would seem that we could not have knowledge of objects, for we do not know the thing in itself (that is, we do not know the object directly, but subjectively).
Brian: What do you mean by objects?
Jon: I have no idea.
Jon: That’s precisely my point. Let’s say we consider what can be called an “object of knowledge,” only applies to propositions. Perhaps “propositions” are objects. Maybe even collections of propositions would be objects (objective collections of objects?). (Would they be objects of objects?) Can we know an object that consists of objects if we do not know all the objects of which the object is composed? If so, we do not even know ourselves, much less anything else. It becomes clear that knowledge exists only in an infallible mind. It is then that subject that is the foundation for knowledge. God is that subject. The only justification for a proposition is whether or not God “thinks” it is true. Something cannot be considered an object of knowlege if God does not know it. Much the same is true when we come to existence. It is only by the omnipotent power of God that anything exists as a distinct ontological being.
Soli Deo Gloria