It is the shattered-but-whole, or the shattered-butthole, or the undecidability of whether it is a Metaproperty M of the tuple (shattered-ambiguous-term", with respect to shattered-unambiguous term. Such that the image that Chiro linked in the previous comment does literally and not figuratively represent God's shattered-butthole, or literally and not figuratively represent God's shattered-but-whole.... Where it is ambiguous or certain that the phenomenally experientiable empirically sensible visual image in the previous post linked by Chiro of an image... Ambiguous implements non-constructively constructively an M where M renders ambiguous a Metaproperty M across the tuple shattered-but-whole and shattered-butthole such that the above imagine is conceivable in that it is empirically experientially sensible or perceived or experientiable, of, certainly or ambiguously or undecidable, a fact that while we can perceive and experience Chiro's above image... We cannot perceive or experience the truth value of the ambiguous M where M works on S where is whether or not the above image is exemplatorilarily exemplied as shattered-but-whole or shattered-butthole where those things are undecidable in regard to their identity or dedicable in regard to their identity. Where the classical theist holds that they must be identical via God's total knowability or conceivability or rationality or coherence.... The Godelian can provide through the ambiguous Metaprocess M the Metaproperty that phenomenally experiencing the above Chiro-linked image, you are perceing in totality a literal not fictional representation of God, as shattered-but-whole or shattered-butthole, in an ambiguous and undecidable way. Such that we have established there are elements in the sent of that which is experientiable but not rational.... Which puts at odds the Beatific Vision as experientiable but not rational.... Which puts at odds the Beatific Vision as a priori shallow or a posteriori deep conceivabile. Such that the Thomstic commitment to the a posteriori collapses into an Anselmian rational a prioricity, and that the preference for the rationality and conceivability and comprehensibility and a prioricity of the preference for rational Anselmianism over Thomism, that this likewise collapses into its negation, from a priori Anselmianism to a posteriori Thomism. Which itself is an undecidable property or Metaproperty M with respect to S where S is to favor the a posteriori or the a posteriori which are or are not necessarily distinct or identical under extension and intension, or whether they are undecidable in terms of identicality or distinctness in regard to preference to a posteriority over the preference for Anelmian a prioricity. So if A then T and if T then A where A and T are essentially distinct given that A entails the favor for a prioricity and T entails the favor of the of the a priority of the A essentially as identical or distinct undecidably... Then this itself exhibits itself as the Godelian M where M exhibits the ambiguity of M's identity with M(M)'s identity. And that this Godelian M, certainly derived and constructed by a Godelian promess M, is necessarily sufficiently justified as stronger than some previously held classical theism. So we have stronger reason to move to a God that is incomprehensible and merely experiential but not rational... from the classical theistic God of comprehensible and rational and a priori or "true" in truth value as opposed to "undecidable." That we have stronger reason, given M, to adopt Godelianism over insufficient Aism or Tism. Where the stronger reason, given M, to adopt Godelianism, is stronger by not absolutely certain? or ambiguously absolutely certain? ... I'm confused now. Wher we have stronger reason, given M, to adopt as our Divinely Simple truth-value-ontology "only undecidable or ambiguous or incomprehensible" as opposed to "only decidable and unambiguous or comprehensible" which is to contrast the A with the T, the T with the A, the identity or distinction of T with A, and the flipping effect transcedentally of A on T and T on A, such that the stronger Godelian M is entailed, that M, by virtue or its own existence, necessarily, known rationally and a priori, is ambiguous in regard to a particular godelian M()....? Where it now provides sufficiently stronger compelling evidence toward Godelean theism over classical theism? Where "certainty" is or is not decidable, and is thus incomplete and not rationally determine and incomprehensible. Which itself is a Godelian M which through ambiguity establishes itself more strongly as or that a Godelian theism is stronger than a classical theism A or T, either necessarily or undecidably and ambiguously... Such that it is wrong to equate God and existence and truth as 1 concept... But it would be right to equate God and existence and undecidability as one concept. Where the size of both of those concepts size of the set of ambiguously or unambiguously known properties yields alternating A/T conclusions which produce necessarily or ambiguously out of necessity a stronger Godelian M which sufficiently stronger yields the rationality of switching to a Godelean theism from a classical theism... Remember, that the Godelean theism is sufficiently distinct than the classical theism, as they have different correlations, or something, or whether or not they do or not have different correlations are determined to be distinct or indeterminable as distinct,.......... Or, in the attempted simple phrasing, there are those that hold that God is or is not identical to his opposite, where God's opposite does or not exist, is or is not the Devil, is or is not nonexistence, and is or is not alternating or mutable, or is or is not ambiguous in regard to M(S) under M().... Failed attempted smple phrasing. There are those who hold God is his opposite. And those who hold that God is not his opposite. And those who hold that the opposite of God is the Devil and the Devil exists. And those who hold that the opposite of God is nonexistence, via God's identity with/as Existence... And so the comprehensibility of G under classical theism once again through an M collapses into the incomprehensibility and incompleteness of the sufficiently strong compelling Godelean reason M under M, that God's nature is best characterized as undecidable rather than true... Failed attempted simple phrasing again. There are those who think God is or is not his oppsite, is or is not the Devil, does or does not exist, and is or is not related to some M about the ambiguity of this M was through a performance of M through this or that essentially distinct concept of G.... Failed attempted simple phrasing again. There are those who think God is or is not his opposite... There are those who think God's opposite is the Devil. There are those who hold the Devil does or does not exist. There are those who hold through God's identity with/as Existence.... God's opposite to be nonexistence, which can not exist, so is or is not the element the Devil, and can or can not be determined to exist.... Failed attempt at simple phrasing. There are those who think something about God and some relation to his opposite. Since God only has one relation, which is perfect relation to himself.... Then this has some implication regarding the purity or possible perversity of the superior conception of God or true vs. undecidable... Which itself is a Godelian M, which most strongly convinces the superiorly intelligent or rational toward Godelian theism from classical theism given the proof of this M existing and being stronger than a previous classical theism, through an ambiguity, which necessarily obfuscates whether the derivation was through essentially distinct properties or methodologies which are undecidable determinable through proper perfect analysis of this M via its own Name. For example, the determinable unambiguous contrast with or identity as/between the Devil and Nonexistence, and this's implications for the derivation of G. Such that, due to some undecidability, perhaps the undecidability if God's opposite is properly exemplorarily present as the Devil compared to presented as Nonexistence, where the later follows from the Negation or God's necessary existence of true under M from Classical to undecidable under Godelian from perception of M. Godelians, and Godelian M's, like the empirical perceptibility of the above Chiro-linked image, but the rational undecidability or the proper perception of the above Chiro-linked image, as being fractured-but-whole or fractured-butthole literally or figuratively, identically or distinctly, where literally and firutatively are essential differences, but these essential difference collapse into a superior world view where those essential differences are rendered inessential, which itself is a Godelian M, which is more stronger suggested than any or all previous Classicals. Such that we ought shift, rationally but undecideably, or incomprehensibly, to Godelian theism from Classical theism. ... Okay, here's one. We have some set of Ms which are all Metapossibilities of God's existence, the theistic proposition, under the strongest classical theism compared with the strongest Godelian theism(s)... And we can, through EXHAUSTION, NON-CONSTRUCTIVELY reach undecidability's favorability and the rational collapse of classical theism into Godelian theism, transition our truth value ontology from only "true" to "undecidable", rendering God's truth value as "undecidable" from "true", which is a collapse from classical to Godelian. As opposed to CONSTRUCTION, OR FINDING A KNOWN SPECIFIC PARTICULAR RATHER THAN AN UNKNOWN AND UNDECIDABLE CERTAIN THROUGH PROOF VIA EXHAUSTION! That if it is Undecidable that we ought to favor of our Logic, our Logos, classical Logic which is impermissive of collapsing or alternating or ambiguous or incomprehensible Ms or Gs. Or we ought to favor unambiguously and decidably the superiority of an M over a Classical G through am ambiguous property of the M, such that the fact of which strategy through M itself was an undecidabiity, which is an incomprehensible, which is itself a stronger reason to favor the Godelian theism over the classical theism. Okay. What. That our logic has implications for our theology, and our theology has implications for our logic. But these things are not perfectly purely reflexive/reflective on each other. And that for any Logos or Logic L we can derive the favorability of a Godelian Logos M which is an enhancement on L from M and M's essential feature of ambiguity of the Metaproperty M on M. So any logic is permissible, any ontology is permissible, God exists or doesn't by choice, neither atheism nor atheism are stronger than one another, this simultaneously produces a Godelian atheism or a Godelian theism which is stronger than some previously held or any and all strongest classical theisms G. .... and has an essential property of being Undecidable in some relevant and important way M, which implies the superiority of Godelian (a)theism over classical theism G. isgoiafgaoigaoi. So this is some Godelian meta proof disproof undecidable decidable ambiguous unambigious Ontological Nihilism or Relativism or Plurality or Monicity. difopahjgoiahfgoiafhgio. @KingOfWhiteAmerica @PS