"without a noncontradictory identity"
Why not just say "with a contradictory identity"? With all due respect some of your sentences are unnecessarily ponderous, man. Keep it simple.
I like my way better, but I thank you for your advice. I'm pretty sure people reading these threads can handle the overly cumbersome placement of out and con, but if I reply to you, I will try and make it extra simple, with as few syllables as possible.
Oh no doubt people can handle it. It's a wonder of the human brain that it can, for the most part, make heads or tails over very garbled language.
No need to make any special accommodations for my part. All I ask is to use correct syntax. :) I was just trying to help. I get the impression you put a lot of effort into what you deem to be the infallability of your arguments and figured that might extend into the mastery of the very language you use to communicate those ideas. "My bad" if that's not the case!
MCT, you need not make it extra simple. Making it clear will suffice.
It is clear and simple enough.
I don't think using few syllables will help. I just don't understand the individual words. Sorry to be such a dunce, but philosophy often just doesn't make sense to me, especially when there are other ways to explain something. For example, how can "noncontradictory identity" prove to me there is no god?
There are rules of logic that exist and are valid. We use these principles, the most notable, in this instance, is the law of identity to perform science, think and communicate. All science depends on existence existing, consciousness being aware of it and of all existents having a particular identity. Were these axioms not valid, science and cognition would not even be.
Noncontradictory identity is necessary for existence. Identity is one of the most basic foundational conditions of existents. And god has no noncontradictory identity. Omnipotence is contradictory (one cannot create a rock that it cannot lift), omniscience is contradictory for similar reasons. It is contradictory to both exist and be supernatural. You cannot reduce any aspect of his being to perceptual evidence. God has no characteristic that affects the causal changing manifesting its identity. And for those who hold out for someone unyet described being that could hypothetically, in a way we don't understand, be god, there is still no identity and hence no existence.
Thanks, I can understand what you said, and I don't mind the extra syllables and words. You make sense.
Thank you, Joan.
Dr. Meaden, that you find it necessary to say "...I will have none of that inside my head" suggests:
1. its existence, and
2. your feeling at risk of having a bit of it there.
"Physics ... has the potential to explain the rest."
Aside from that's being an article of faith, a few years ago I heard that Stephen Hawking had assigned to the Pope the first very short interval of time after the big bang. Did he do so? If he did, has he retracted it?
The explanation to which the name "big bang" is attached is itself an article of faith, and the claim by some cosmologists that time and space originated with their bang is, and has to be, a fantasy in their minds.
1. I have zero patience for any supposed possibility of the existence of anything supernatural anywhere----just as I have zero belief in the existence of orbiting china teapots, the god pruitt, or pre-13.7 billion year creator gods as being anything other than fictions created by mankind.
2. What risk? There is no risk at all of any such nonsense being possible.
Physics has explained everything so far and has the potential to explain anything that gets discovered in the future. That's not faith. It's reality.
Stephen Hawking often said things he did not mean as a tease. If he said it, he certainly does not say it, even jokingly, now. He made it plain earlier this month that he is a 100% atheist.
As for the Big Bang, it is NOT an article of faith. It has been a helpful working hypothesis these last 50 years. But scientists always allow that any theory may eventually be replaced by a better one. New scientific discoveries inevitably introduce changes that lead to improvements or even total replacements.
"There is no risk at all of any such nonsense being possible."
Attaching the signifier "nonsense" to the signified helps.
"Physics has explained everything so far..."
Dark matter? Dark energy? Allegedly faster-than-light neutrinos? The Higgs?