I think you didn't understand what I was doing. I was doing exactly what you did. Asserting claims without proof. I know what the words mean separately, I don't know what you're talking about when you say knowledge presupposes unity of diversity. Either it's something to be understood or you're spouting incoherent nonsense. Do you understand what falsifiable? It means the conclusion was based on an observation that would be wrong if there was some observation.
That you don’t know why “knowledge presupposes unity of diversity” explains why you think I was “asserting claims without proof.” Granted, I was not providing a fully argued point, but was giving a general summary of how Christian theism solves the problem of the one and the many, assuming you were at least generally familiar with this problem. Philosophers since Plato have been trying to solve it. I didn’t think the “problem” itself would be controversial.
It is irrational to think that the logic we know will always be the same. Logic is falsifiable. If we observe that our logic does not work anymore than we have to change our rules of logic. I could say the last second seemed to behave according to logic. But if it is observed that the same apple can be at two different places at the same time, logic has to change. That was precisely done in Quantum Mechanics, where quantum logic is different from classical logic. We do not have enough knowledge to be certain that logic will always be like that. But in calculations we assume that it will be. That is to say, if x, then necessarily y. We do not say that x is necessary. This is not based on faith or certainty. This is based on assumptions. What I believe about reality does not alter reality. I can believe that the Big Bang Theory or Theory of Evolution is accurate, but I won't be surprise if it turned out to be wrong. It just means that some assumptions or observations were inaccurate. Our calculations will always falsifiable.
To argue against classical logic, because there is a minority view on other logics, isn’t really convincing. You have to appeal to classical logic to argue the point, so it is self-defeating, if true, from my vantage point.
Why is ultimate oneness a problem?
Read up on the problem of the one and the many; or on universals and particulars (in light of realism, nominalism, and idealism). But, simplistically put, knowledge assumes predication, and you cannot predicate anything about anything unless there is a diversity of particulars; but if you have ultimate diversity, you can’t predicate anything about the particulars, because that assumes they are actually related to the universals, unified in some way.
Is your God also not ultimately one? Apparently Christians call themselves Monotheists and it is likely you are a Monotheist too.
Yes, we believe there is one God, and this one God exists as three persons. One and Three. Call it a paradox, or even a contradiction (that would be a separate debate), but what you cannot say is that Christians believe in an ultimate oneness or an ultimate plurality of reality. Christians believe in a co-ultimacy of unity and diversity in reality – the godhead. If there was ultimate oneness, there would be no distinction between the Son, Father, and Spirit, therefore there could be no “trinity.” But, if there is ultimate diversity, then we have three distinct gods, and there would be no monotheism.
Even if I cannot account for knowledge, what makes you think you can account for knowledge?
Revelation.
Maybe I haven't define what is knowledge. Knowledge is a set of propositions that a sentient being knows. Do you know that your left hand can touch your right hand? Just do it and you'll know. By that I mean by knowledge. The definition of knowledge does not change with a different 'worldview'. I could easily assert that even if you attempt to account for knowledge, you have been mistaken. Which is as nonsensical as everything you have asserted.
That definition of knowledge seems quite lacking. Do the propositions have to be true? What is truth? Since truth is contingent upon propositions, and propositions upon a mind, is anything true before you think it? Do you create truth? Can I hold these beliefs accidentally, or is there a proper way to form beliefs in order for it to constitute knowledge?
One also cannot falsify the assertion that the Holy and Great Bunny or the Holy and Magnificent Rat or Krishna or Zeus or Barnie or Elvis Presley is a precondition for knowledge.
Sure we can, they are self-falsifying. Take Zeus. He lacks authority to describe reality. He cannot hold all things together (Col. 1:17). He may be a powerful god, but he is just a god among many. He is one competing authority claim against the others; truth is all relative on poly-theism. Secondly, since knowledge is grounded in necessary truths, such as the laws of logic, any finite creature you present lacks the ontological equipment to ground knowledge. .
How has knowledge got to do with unity of diversity? You can explain what you mean by that and the implications of 'unity of diversity' on knowledge. Really interested to see how the statement "Truth and knowledge presupposes a unity of diversity" can be explained or proven. It's a sentence that does not make sense and has no meaning.
No analogy is perfect, but consider a written work, like a book. This consists of a collection of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, and chapters. On one level, we could say that it consists of a diversity of letters. If the letters were an ultimate diversity, the book would be unintelligible. However, if the letters were viewed as unified (and actually were unified by an author), forming words and sentences, there would be a potential for intelligibility (we would get subjects and predicates, i.e. propositions). On a larger scale, we can think of sentences as the particulars and the paragraphs as the unifications of those particulars. We have to assume each paragraph relates to the prior, and will relate to those yet to come, in some fashion.
Conversely, if the book had no diversity, it would likewise be unintelligible. If every letter and word meant “cat,” all you would know is “cat.” There must be a diversity of meanings, and universals, by which we can predicate things, otherwise there would be nothing to know or think.
This analogy can be stretched to any area of knowledge. We can say the universe is intelligible only because it is a uni-verse (unity of diversity). Or, think about something as simple as a syllogism, which presupposes the unity of various diverse premises. That all men are mortal can lead intelligibly to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal, only because Socrates was already contained in the subject of premise one “all men.” In fact, all knowledge boils down and can be contained in one premise (according to the Bible, Christ (Col. 2:2-3). You cannot provide a single argument that doesn’t beg the question. Some just beg the question in less obvious ways (because we are ignorant of some facts embedded in some other facts). But, the “one” is only intelligible by stretching it out into diversity in light of its unity.