On the place for God

A discussion about the reality we perceive with our senses does fundamentally include just three components: 1. objects, 2. classes and 3. categories: objects being the entities we divide the reality into, classes being the templates we use to group the objects, and categories being the resulting groups of objects.

This set-up does, however, mean that such a discussion actually has two theoretically possible entrances: 1. to assume as an axiom that objects are real or 2. to assume as an axiom that classes are real  The latter of these, ie, assuming as an axiom that classes are real, appears irrational in this point of my meta-discussion of such a discussion, but may none-the-less appear rational in such a discussion. When we're in a discussion, we-re actually blinded to the axioms our arguments rest on, and we can thus actually take a step from one of these fundamental axioms to the other without even being aware of that we do.

The fundamental problem for us is, however, that neither of the possible axioms can lead us to an unambiguous description of the reality we perceive, because the axiom that objects are real is ambiguous in relation to reality, whereas the axiom that classes are real is paradoxically contradictory. There is thus no unambiguous solution of the problem, ie, no unambiguous description of reality. This fact means that we can continue discussing reality for ever and ever without reaching a single unambiguous solution. It doesn't matter which entrance to the discussion we choose, we will still never find an unambiguous solution. The pure aim for a single solution, ie, a single true description of reality, is thus vain. Such single solution is thus a matter of belief rather than a matter of discussion. It is an empty hole for science, but a place for a God, like the "true tree of life" and "Higgs' particle". The problem with it is that it is paradoxically contradictory (as Bertrand Russell demonstrated) and also contradicts the fact that time is relative to speed in space, meaning that it can only be filled by ("inconsitent) belief (like cladistics and Higgs' particle-ism). This hole in conceptualization is thus either empty or filled with inconsistent content. It is actually where God has a place.  .