So, is there such a thing as an invalid Metaphysical proposition?

[greylorn]

Oh I agree with your letter of the law interpretation of the OP. But I suspect the OP meant to say something to the effect of, “isn’t metaphysics just fantasy stories that can’t be verified scientifically”.

Anyways, nothing to see anymore… move along, move along.

Experience has shown me that individuals who attribute their own meanings to straightforward statements or questions (such as the O.P.) are not really interested in conversation.

In case I am mistaken, let’s first clarify what “metaphysics” is, since many posters to this thread have invented their own opinions about it.

Aristotle invented a form of physics, i.e. rules describing how the universe worked. His physics formed part of the knowledge base from which many Catholic theologians such as Aquinas derived their opinions. Aristotelian physics was logically shown to be incorrect by Galileo, and eventually proven incorrect by subsequent scientific work. But that is no matter.

Aristotle also set himself to musing about the causes of the “laws of physics” which he had discovered. Why do we have these laws? What brought these laws into existence? What preceded physics?

After his demise, his followers set about to the cataloging of his writings. They put this later set of ideas after the section on physics, and named it accordingly: metaphysics. “meta” in Greek means “after.” IMO it would have been more appropriately named “antephysics,” since “ante” means, as any poker player knows, “before.” However, since Aristotle got both physics and metaphysics wrong, it seems fitting that his followers misnamed his final musings.

The verification of any metaphysical theory depends upon the nature of the theory. Most of the trash published under the title is speculative bunk which cannot be proven or disproven. It is just religion hiding behind a pseudo-physics mask, wearing a pseudo-philosophical wig.

The only ideas which can be proven, disproven, or most interestingly, empirically verified are those which make clear statements and predictions relating to the physical universe. The methods for verification are the same as those used for physics. They are entirely inferential.

 

[Shike]

Experience has shown me that individuals who attribute their own meanings to straightforward statements or questions (such as the O.P.) are not really interested in conversation.

In case I am mistaken, let’s first clarify what “metaphysics” is, since many posters to this thread have invented their own opinions about it.

You know you are very well mistaken. I thought we were the best of friends a few months back. We conversed grandly.

The verification of any metaphysical theory depends upon the nature of the theory. Most of the trash published under the title is speculative bunk which cannot be proven or disproven. It is just religion hiding behind a pseudo-physics mask, wearing a pseudo-philosophical wig.

Yeah, what you said sounds good and I think I agree. But I’m curious how you know that most of the trash published under the title metaphysics is speculative bunk which cannot be proven or disproven. Is that because by definition, if it is trash, then it is speculative bunk?

 

[greylorn]

You know you are very well mistaken. I thought we were the best of friends a few months back. We conversed grandly.

Mea culpa.

I have no friends. There are individuals with whom I can share a coherent conversation, and you are on that very short list. I value such people. You’ve hung in there quite well. I therefore apologize.

By way of poor excuse, I’ve been off CAF for a few months and hadn’t recalled the quality of our conversations. Had I done so I’d have been gentler, but still would have suggested that you do not spin the OP to make a point. That’s just a matter of integrity. We’re not politicians. We can be straight up.

I anticipate future conversations, so long as they stay real.

Yeah, what you said sounds good and I think I agree. But I’m curious how you know that most of the trash published under the title metaphysics is speculative bunk which cannot be proven or disproven. Is that because by definition, if it is trash, then it is speculative bunk?

Shike

Statement rewording is the way to stay on the bottom of my short list of interesting people. Did I say anything about definitions? Why treat adjectives as if they were full statements?

You have an oblique way of asking questions. Are you a liberal newspaper reporter? Rather than reword your question and fall into the same pit I’d like to coax you out of, I’ll take the limited liberty of dismissing your last question (which is only about the comparative value of adjectives) and treating your middle statement as if it was actually a formal question. At that level it is an honest question. Let me know if you have a problem with that.

A complete answer requires background.

I know some physics, engineering, etc., and because I wonder about the beginnings of things, I’ve read metaphysics. Although I believe that religion is relevant, particularly in the values a solid belief system can offer to a person trying to figure out the best way to live, I no longer believe than any of our current religions have valid answers to metaphysical questions.

Every metaphysical book, paper, treatise, statement, or offhand opinion I have ever encountered is dreadfully illogical. Logic is higher than God, since He cannot change it. Therefore, illogical material gets the “speculative bunk” label.

Logic relates to provability. If theories do not meet the basic test of internal logical coherency, why bother with them? Good experiments are difficult to perform. They require time, resources, and intelligence. Only a fool would attempt to prove or disprove an idea which is illogical at its own core.

I’m not simply speaking of the “Metaphysical Bookstore’s” current stock of incoherent musings when I criticize metaphysical theories. I include within the group of internally illogical metaphysical theories, those presented by two well-funded groups of very intelligent folks who should have done better— the Catholic Church and modern cosmological science. The omnipotent God concept is, strictly speaking, a metaphysical theory. It is not logically consistent with its own conclusions, and is dreadfully inconsistent with one of the most fundamental laws of physics. The Big Bang theory is also a metaphysical theory. It is logically absurd and contrary to more fundamental principles of modern physics than the classic God concept.

As you see, I hand out my complaints about metaphysics fairly and with both hands.

In case you’d like an evaluation of adjectives, I’d put our current God-concept and Big Bang theory into the bin labeled “speculative bunk.” Both ideas are just things that various people made up. The ideas are accepted not because they are good, but because followers on either side thought that they were good. (You’ll notice plenty of dissention from within and without the ranks of both sides.) Because very intelligent people accept one or the other of these ideas, they get a 5-syllable negative adjective pair out of my deep respect for people with Ph.d’s.

The other metaphysical stuff I get these days (I only read things which come recommended by someone I know) is mostly “channeled” garbage. I personally trained two trance channelers, and paid for readings from several others. I like to experiment. One famous channeler stayed in my guest house a week or so and held readings there, before he was famous. He is an absolute fraud. The two I trained were not frauds, but the spooks they channeled were disreputable jerks with nothing better to do than toy with the minds of the gullible. This stuff is trash, so warrants only a single-syllable adjective.

Those are only my opinions.

But consider this. Most of the word “metaphysics” is “physics.” Yet, few of those who offer their views on the subject know enough physics to reproduce Newton’s fundamental theorem of calculus, which lies at the core of all physics. How could they? They never took the trouble to study either calculus or physics.

I’m not claiming that someone needs a Ph.d. to understand metaphysics or anything else, but one does need some large part of the knowledge that might be acquired along the way to obtaining one.

Metaphysics is good and important stuff. The development of a correct metaphysical scheme has been my life’s work, so I’m the last person to put the subject down.

 

[Shike]

Statement rewording is the way to stay on the bottom of my short list of interesting people. Did I say anything about definitions? Why treat adjectives as if they were full statements?

Cause I thought it was funny, somewhat. That’s all. We all need a little fun now and again.

I no longer believe than any of our current religions have valid answers to metaphysical questions.

Yes… I’m starting to remember.

Logic is higher than God, since He cannot change it. Therefore, illogical material gets the “speculative bunk” label.

I don’t see any reason to claim that logic is higher than God… it could be the case that is very much “a part” of him.

Logic relates to provability. If theories do not meet the basic test of internal logical coherency, why bother with them? Good experiments are difficult to perform. They require time, resources, and intelligence. Only a fool would attempt to prove or disprove an idea which is illogical at its own core.

Truth doesn’t necessarily relate to provability, however, so one must be careful on the stock one puts into strict formal logic. What holds up the laws of logic anyways?

The omnipotent God concept is, strictly speaking, a metaphysical theory. It is not logically consistent with its own conclusions, and is dreadfully inconsistent with one of the most fundamental laws of physics.

Yes, I remember our conversation much better now. After all those words I still fail to see the inconsistency(ies). And am a little bit sad that it seems you didn’t take anything away from some of my attemps at explanations of apparent contradictions.

But consider this. Most of the word “metaphysics” is “physics.” Yet, few of those who offer their views on the subject know enough physics to reproduce Newton’s fundamental theorem of calculus, which lies at the core of all physics. How could they? They never took the trouble to study either calculus or physics.

But just as you said, metaphysics is before physics so one doesn’t necessarily need the knowledge of physics to operate here. But before you object, I totally agree that knowledge of such an area is immensely helpful in such endeavors, as Aquinas reasoned.

peace,
Michael

 

[greylorn]

Cause I thought it was funny, somewhat. That’s all. We all need a little fun now and again.

Aren’t you supposed to throw up a smiley face or something? While I love good humor and even have a sense of it, I take metaphysics, religion, and physics way too seriously. The quest for a good metaphysical system has ruined my life, so I’m entitled to be cranky and serious about it.

I don’t see any reason to claim that logic is higher than God… it could be the case that is very much “a part” of him.

Beliefs always trump logic, so I won’t offer any logical proofs. But consider this. People all over the world argue about who God is, what He is, what he wants, what’s his purpose, etc. The rest argue that God is not. Yet every intelligent member of these groups of diverse believers and disbelievers accepts the absolute truth of mathematical logic.

That in itself makes mathematical logic higher than God.

Now mind closely the adjective in that sentence. I don’t care much for philosophical logic, because it is not true logic. Aquinas would have done well to discard half as many of his writings as I’ve done of mine. Aristotle discovered and then formalized logic, and then used it to explain Aristotelian physics, which is dead wrong. Philosophical logic is mostly just a way for guys who use abstruse words in convoluted sentences to impress one another or their pseudo-intellectual female friends with increasingly advanced levels of obfuscation. A good logician must transcend that nonsense. The secret to doing that is to become old, gnarly, and independent.

Truth doesn’t necessarily relate to provability, however, so one must be careful on the stock one puts into strict formal logic. What holds up the laws of logic anyways?

I don’t understanding the meaning of your first sentence. Please clarify.

Personally, I avoid strict formal logic like I’d avoid sneezing pig farmers wearing Cisco Kid hats… Simple, informal logic expressed in unambiguous words and clear statements works for me. So does math. Logic is tolerant of informality.

There are no laws of logic. Laws are things that people invent.

Logic is beyond laws, and exists even without anyone to discover it. It cannot be invented— only discovered. Logic existed before the universe, before God, and will remain indifferent to our conversations forever.

Logic is simply a set of definitions and possible relationships between them. Mathematical logic is a simplified form of logic which does not allow the definitions to change in the middle of an analysis.

Yes, I remember our conversation much better now. After all those words I still fail to see the inconsistency(ies). And am a little bit sad that it seems you didn’t take anything away from some of my attemps at explanations of apparent contradictions.

Feeling sad is much easier than improving an explanation. I invite you to get to work. I don’t base any of my ideas or theories on faith, so am open to good arguments.

I used to feel sad when people disagreed with my best ideas; now I am used to it. After a passage of time, at least six months, the same individuals who vehemently disagreed with my arguments repeated them to me, paraphrased, as if they’d invented the notions themselves. Doesn’t seem much point in feeling bad because people have egos.

But if you find me expressing your ideas as if they were mine, call me on it. I cannot think alone and appreciate the few willing to assist my thought processes.
Shall we set up a mutually initiated thread to revisit those incomplete conversations?

But just as you said, metaphysics is before physics so one doesn’t necessarily need the knowledge of physics to operate here. But before you object, I totally agree that knowledge of such an area is immensely helpful in such endeavors, as Aquinas reasoned.

peace,
Michael

I hate to disagree with someone who’s trying to be agreeable, but this is a biggie. It is possible to invent metaphysical theories in the absence of any knowledge of physics, but only in the sense that monkeys can type words on typewriters without knowing language.

 

[Shike]

Aren’t forums great?

Beliefs always trump logic, so I won’t offer any logical proofs. But consider this. People all over the world argue about who God is, what He is, what he wants, what’s his purpose, etc. The rest argue that God is not. Yet every intelligent member of these groups of diverse believers and disbelievers accepts the absolute truth of mathematical logic.

That in itself makes mathematical logic higher than God.

I accept truth wherever I find it. Some mathematics is self-evident, some is not. It appears that God’s existence is not a self-evident proposition. You use this distinction to show that mathematical logic is higher than God? I can’t see this argument going past the realm of subjectivity.

Now mind closely the adjective in that sentence. I don’t care much for philosophical logic, because it is not true logic.

By philosophical logic you mean the logic represented by rules like modus ponens, de morgan’s, modus tollens, etc.? I don’t know, it’s too hard to tell what in the world you mean from that statement. But if I were you, I would just use the word logic since it seems you’re just using “philosophical” as a euphemism for “incorrect”. Whatever logical principles that work and that you can apprehend the truth of should be the set of logical principles that you use.

Aquinas would have done well to discard half as many of his writings as I’ve done of mine. Aristotle discovered and then formalized logic, and then used it to explain Aristotelian physics, which is dead wrong.

As you know using correct logical principles won’t get you to truth if you don’t start out with true premises. This is by no means a good reason to throw out “Aristotelian logic” (which I think is still just called logic these days).

Philosophical logic is mostly just a way for guys who use abstruse words in convoluted sentences to impress one another or their pseudo-intellectual female friends with increasingly advanced levels of obfuscation. A good logician must transcend that nonsense. The secret to doing that is to become old, gnarly, and independent.

Lol, I like what you say! Definitely too much obfuscation in philosophy nowadays. That is why I like Aquinas… he gets to the point and has a very plain writing style, none of this novel bs that we get with particular German philosophers (not naming names). But we are in the era of philosophy that focuses primarily on word usage and language… Greek & Medieval focused on essences, Renaissance focused on knowledge, Moderns focus on the word.

Truth doesn’t necessarily relate to provability, however, so one must be careful on the stock one puts into strict formal logic. What holds up the laws of logic anyways?

There are some truths that we cannot prove. I mean prove in the very formal way as showing a logical proof. So if I was only to accept things that were only provable through formal logic, I would be missing out on some truths. For instance, you’d probably miss out on knowing other people, relationships etc. Based on your posts, I hazard that you agree with this.

There are no laws of logic. Laws are things that people invent.

Logic is beyond laws, and exists even without anyone to discover it. It cannot be invented— only discovered. Logic existed before the universe, before God, and will remain indifferent to our conversations forever.

Sounds a lot like God to me. Maybe you need a bigger concept of God.

Feeling sad is much easier than improving an explanation. I invite you to get to work. I don’t base any of my ideas or theories on faith, so am open to good arguments.

But at least your ideas and theories are based on faith. How can you reason the reasonableness of reason? You must trust like all of us; in a way, you are relying on God when you use your thinking cap.

Shall we set up a mutually initiated thread to revisit those incomplete conversations?

If you would like to; I wouldn’t mind. But I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I hate to disagree with someone who’s trying to be agreeable, but this is a biggie. It is possible to invent metaphysical theories in the absence of any knowledge of physics, but only in the sense that monkeys can type words on typewriters without knowing language.

Fair enough. Since we are creatures, concrete experience is beneficial, if even for all practical purposes needed.

 

[greylorn]

Aren’t forums great?

Now there’s a perfect example of an invalid metaphysical proposition. Good job.

And yes. Without them I would have zero conversations on non-trivial subjects. Even here it often gets lonely.

I accept truth wherever I find it. Some mathematics is self-evident, some is not. It appears that God’s existence is not a self-evident proposition. You use this distinction to show that mathematical logic is higher than God? I can’t see this argument going past the realm of subjectivity.

Shall we try taking the argument beyond subjectivity? If so, you might reread my original comment about mathematics and God. “Higher” than God was a dumb word choice. A better wording would have been to declare logic to be absolutely independent of God. Consider this simple argument.

The integers 1,2,3, etc. are purely symbolic. So are the the mathematical relationships between them, +, -, =, etc. While the integers and their relationships can be applied to apples and oranges, they do not need apples and oranges to exist. They do not need anything to exist. They do not need God.

God cannot make the integers and their relationships go away, nor can He change the effect of the relationships as they are defined. (God cannot declare that 2+2=5.)

Like ourselves, God can only discover mathematical relationships. He can not create them. I am certain that He has discovered many more interesting relationships than we will ever know. I would not expect Him to have discovered all possible such relationships.

By philosophical logic you mean the logic represented by rules like modus ponens, de morgan’s, modus tollens, etc.? I don’t know, it’s too hard to tell what in the world you mean from that statement. But if I were you, I would just use the word logic since it seems you’re just using “philosophical” as a euphemism for “incorrect”. Whatever logical principles that work and that you can apprehend the truth of should be the set of logical principles that you use.

Fair enough. I’m using the term “philosophical logic” to apply to the trash I find when I read most philosophical writings. Since it is mostly incorrect, I’ve not much respect for it. I started reading a book recommended by a friend, supposedly philosophy relating to science. “The Science Before Science,” by Anthony Rizzi. Reading it is like gnawing through gristle. The morsel of meat I’d hoped to find in the middle turned out to be hamburger— old 80% fat burger that’s been sitting in too many meat cases already. The book is a tiresome meandering about words and meaning, transforming ordinary words into philosophical jargon, building up a case for rigorous arguments, and finally producing abstruse slop. That seems to be what philosophy does these days— fuss about words.

I am only interested in words insofar as they can express interesting and useful concepts.

As you know using correct logical principles won’t get you to truth if you don’t start out with true premises. This is by no means a good reason to throw out “Aristotelian logic” (which I think is still just called logic these days).

Absolutely right. But don’t you find it curious that the inventor of Aristotelian logic could not use his invention competently? How then are lesser philosophers likely to do better?

I think that because of the slop in so-called logical arguments (Star Trek’s Spock character being a perfect bad example) I prefer to make distinctions. Mathematical logic is in a class by itself. Boolean logic likewise, although of course the underlying principles of logic are the same.

I take an engineer’s approach to logic. Measure value by results. Philosophers have not produced anything of value. I include Aquinas in this group. He has served the Church by wrapping its cherished concepts in fine threads of logic, but his premises are faulty. Often, so is his reasoning.

Consider this as my proof of Aquinas’ failings: You accept the existence of a Creator, as do I. In recent centuries, a number of extraordinarily intelligent men have discovered marvelous things about our universe, and its workings. The few of them who believe in God find no need to attribute any of these workings to that God. Aquinas’ (and the Church’s failure) to produce a concept of God which these guys can believe in, and which is naturally integrated into the workings of the universe, is practical proof that the God concept is incorrect.

Please note that this does not mean there is no God. It only means that religious concepts about the nature of God are in the same league as phlogiston theory.

Lol, I like what you say!

There is hope for you yet.

 

[greylorn]

Reply, part II.

Definitely too much obfuscation in philosophy nowadays. That is why I like Aquinas… he gets to the point and has a very plain writing style, none of this novel bs that we get with particular German philosophers (not naming names). But we are in the era of philosophy that focuses primarily on word usage and language… Greek & Medieval focused on essences, Renaissance focused on knowledge, Moderns focus on the word.

Your knowledge of philosophy greatly exceeds mine. I wouldn’t know an ad valorum from a nose hair. Based upon my limited (but selected) readings I agree with you. Perhaps my own writings would be considered “philosophy” if I did not focus upon concepts, particularly those which have gone out of fashion.

There are some truths that we cannot prove. I mean prove in the very formal way as showing a logical proof. So if I was only to accept things that were only provable through formal logic, I would be missing out on some truths. For instance, you’d probably miss out on knowing other people, relationships etc. Based on your posts, I hazard that you agree with this.

I accept both the logic and sense of your statements. They bring up some thoughts…

I trust that you are not applying any of this to me, even by implication. I use mathematical logic in my trade, but do not find formal logic to be a useful tool for living. Common sense logic definitely applies. When splitting firewood, it is best to use the sharp end of the axe. When splitting hairs, fire up the ad valorums.

Maybe you need a bigger concept of God.

Au contraire.

Formal logic has its purposes, especially when de-formalized and applied. For example, formal logic convinced me many years ago that God cannot exist. I accepted that.

However, there was no formal logic which convinced me that I did not exist. Likewise galaxies, a planet, mosquitoes and flowers. These things needed explanation. The very same logic which convinced me that God did not exist also made it perfectly obvious (as it should to anyone with a functional mind) that the universe was the product of conscious intelligence.

This was not the conundrum it at first appeared. It only meant that the classical God concept does not apply to the construction of the universe. There is precedent for such ideas. The perfectly logical Euclidean geometry we studied in high school applies to only a subset of the universe. If one wants to design a bridge, Euclid’s is the geometry of choice. However, it does not apply to the discovery of wormholes in relativistic space. For that, more complex geometries are necessary.

Therefore, I devised a God concept which applies to reality. It contains no mysteries or conundrums. In its context, questions such as, “Can man have free will?” or “Why does God permit evil?” are either irrelevant, or have obvious answers. My God concept has a more interesting explanation for the creation of man than simply to keep God company. It is also consistent in form and style with the God of the Old Testament.

I’m not saying that your concept of God is better or worse than mine, only different. Each concept serves a different purpose. Yours satisfies the need to own a God concept which is logically superior in all respects to any other possible God concept.

Mine serves a different purpose, that of explaining every aspect of the universe which God created— galaxies, planets, flowers, carnivores, disease, pain, death, life, jerks, women, and flowers.

I can tolerate such a God concept because I have no need to be right or to be in agreement with others. I do want to know exactly why I exist, nevermind that I dislike the answer.

But at least your ideas and theories are based on faith.

Not so. I admit that my childhood faith left me with a predisposition to believe in something beyond myself, but when science and logic proved my understandings of that something to be false, I was left to find something more substantial to base my working concepts on than faith. I’ve chosen various levels of experience, including the shared experiences of others. Plus logic, of course.

How can you reason the reasonableness of reason?

You’ve stepped into something which I’m familiar with from cleaning out stalls. Would you mind scraping the sole of that boot, then proceeding?

You must trust like all of us; in a way, you are relying on God when you use your thinking cap.

Quite the contrary. If I take “thinking cap” to mean, my brain, I’ve found that that is definitely the least trustworthy of learning tools. Brain is a computer with an associative memory mechanism which, by its very nature, continually invites us to agree with the most commonly held beliefs. Brain is stupid. It assumes that everything it knows is true. (That is why we find it difficult to get our lies straight.) And I attribute the creation of the brain to God.

(Lest you mistakenly assume that I am denigrating His design, I figure that, given the brain’s real purpose, it is perfectly engineered.)

If you would like to; I wouldn’t mind. But I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I’ll pursue that later. I have three sheds full of tools for fixing everything from cars to computers to houses. A sharp chainsaw blade is great for cutting wood, lousy for overhauling an engine. Effectiveness is a good measure of the worth of tools and minds.

 

[Shike]

        Shall we try taking the argument beyond subjectivity? If so, you might reread my original comment about mathematics and God. "Higher" than God was a dumb word choice. A better wording would have been to declare logic to be absolutely independent of God.

You had me until the word absolutely. I agree that they could be independent, however.

The integers 1,2,3, etc. are purely symbolic. So are the the mathematical relationships between them, +, -, =, etc. While the integers and their relationships can be applied to apples and oranges, they do not need apples and oranges to exist. They do not need anything to exist. They do not need God.

Yes, because God is very much like apples and oranges. Like you said, I agree that the laws of logic could be independent in the way I’m independent from my parents, but that says nothing about their current existence and what is “holding” them up, their particular explanation.

As you know using correct logical principles won’t get you to truth if you don’t start out with true premises. This is by no means a good reason to throw out “Aristotelian logic” (which I think is still just called logic these days).

It’s an area I definitely want to look further into, the individual cases that he got wrong. But don’t make the mistake of saying that he got everything wrong; in fact, I bet he got a lot right. With philosophers you need to look at each individual position and what they had to say, there is no categorizing and writing someone off. Take truth wherever you find it. And in his logical principles there is an exemplary amount of truth.

Lesser philosophers could probably do a great deal better if they read up on their history of philosophy. History helps us not to repeat the same mistakes.

Consider this as my proof of Aquinas’ failings: You accept the existence of a Creator, as do I. In recent centuries, a number of extraordinarily intelligent men have discovered marvelous things about our universe, and its workings. The few of them who believe in God find no need to attribute any of these workings to that God. Aquinas’ (and the Church’s failure) to produce a concept of God which these guys can believe in, and which is naturally integrated into the workings of the universe, is practical proof that the God concept is incorrect.

That’s it? Just because a few people apparently couldn’t figure things out we should just ditch the whole kit-and-caboodle? Surely you have something much much better than this, hidden away. Actually, I see this time and time again… for some reason people think the “God of the gaps” is the only position a Christian could take. This is easily dismissed: any findings of how the universe works can be attributed to God, for one could say this is how he chose to do such and such. God is not meant to be a scientific answer but the answer. The answer to the longing and thirst of each individual person.

Please note that this does not mean there is no God. It only means that religious concepts about the nature of God are in the same league as phlogiston theory.

Nope, it doesn’t even mean that. It’s a subjective argument. Come on, common sense rule number 4, majority opinion (or in this case minority) doesn’t entail truth.

The very same logic which convinced me that God did not exist also made it perfectly obvious (as it should to anyone with a functional mind) that the universe was the product of conscious intelligence.

Then maybe you’d like Aquinas’ argument from design.

Formal logic has its purposes, especially when de-formalized and applied. For example, formal logic convinced me many years ago that God cannot exist.

Hogwash. I have yet to find an argument that proves God cannot exist. I believe there’s something like only two arguments against the existence of God, and one says that God is only an unnecessary hypothesis. You will obviously say that formal logic proves a particular “version” of God to not exist… well I have yet to find a compelling argument to drop a certain, particular “version”. I don’t know, I guess such a strong claim needs strong evidence to back it up; I haven’t seen any yet.

 

[Shike]

Therefore, I devised a God concept which applies to reality. It contains no mysteries or conundrums. In its context, questions such as, “Can man have free will?” or “Why does God permit evil?” are either irrelevant, or have obvious answers. My God concept has a more interesting explanation for the creation of man than simply to keep God company. It is also consistent in form and style with the God of the Old Testament.

So you made God according to your own image, that’s ironic. Have you ever thought that by totally explaining God and putting him in such a neat little box you have done away with adventure, excitement, the Supreme Other, with love? And by the way, “simply to keep God company” is silly if you mean to say that God somehow needs us. And it’s also silly in that it is such a reduction of the Beatific Vision that it’s not funny. I agree with you if that were the case there must be a more interesting answer.

I’m not saying that your concept of God is better or worse than mine, only different.

Seriously? Relativism is reserved for a few threads down the hall and to the right. There are obvious contradictions between some aspects of what we believe between us two. Both can’t be correct. Let’s not kid ourselves.

I do want to know exactly why I exist, never mind that I dislike the answer.

Many people get confused between the question “why I exist” and “how I exist”. Just be careful.

You’ve stepped into something which I’m familiar with from cleaning out stalls. Would you mind scraping the sole of that boot, then proceeding?

You missed the point. The point is that correct reasoning is not infallible, one must trust the foundations of reason. There is no room for a Descartes styled rationalism here.

I think we’re hitting the outer bounds of the thread topic here.

Peace,
Michael