@Michael Tricoci: Testable proof of god is oxymoronic.
That depends on how you define god? Many people simply define god as being untestable by usual verifiable means.
I don't see any contradiction in what I said. Some people define it as untestable, others do not.
If someone comes up with a test for god, fine, bring it on; obviously I doubt anything will result of it, but I don't see how god is untestable by all definitions.
"If you are not talking about a creator, about omnipotence, omniscience, miracles, spirits, magic, heaven, hell or the soul, then you are not talking about a god."
You just defined god using a specific set of attributes...
I understand now that when you say identity, you mean a definition without logical contradiction. In that light, I agree there cannot be anything supernatural.
But your "test" of identity is not up to the capabilities of science. You may say that science needs philosophy to function, but so far you have not proven it to me.
I tried explaining this to you earlier. Our brains are pattern recognition machines that group perceptions into concepts based on the laws of causality and noncontradiction. Integrating these concepts by reason and logic is the only path to knowledge, which is both contextually and hierarchically valid (if it is knowledge). Things do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure and momentum. There is no way around this. Your favorite thing in the world, science, is dependent on this. So, when asked to test if a concept is possible, I would attempt to integrate it into my knowledge base. But even before I can come up with an hypothesis to test empirically, I come across the very simple idea that the concept of god does not integrate without contradiction. In fact, it very plainly and obviously does not. You cannot test empirically what has no empiric nature. Any possible definition of god includes supernatural acausal contradictory qualities. For something to be perceived, conceived and integrated or told about and reduced to perceptual evidence, it would have to be causal, have particular limited qualities, for one, and two, it cannot have logically contradictory qualities, since I know that the causal nature of reality is necessary for concept formation from identity to begin with.
A definition is simply the phoneme we give to denote a particular concept. Valid concepts are ones with concrete plausible characteristics. Invalid concepts, which cannot exist, are ones without. A proper definition includes only essentials.
I appreciate your effort to educate me, but here is what my feeble understanding of your words comes out to be. It is an analogy. We humans have hands and the only way to truly dig is to use our hands, but using a tool like a shovel now that's good and all, but it is not the essence of digging.
Do you understand my analogy? Your study of how people perceive and how they form concepts should be and is a scientific endeavour. This tool we call science has something to say about everything in existence, including how us animals form concepts.
Our five senses are our only way of interacting with the world. What our senses deliver to our brains is used by our brains to form ideas, concepts, and feelings about those ideas and concepts.
Can our 5 senses be augmented for better perception? If we end up with better perception, would not that mean our concepts are better formed? Does the formation of those concepts depend on "laws" (rules imposed by humans without the improved perceptions)?
I agree that the laws and rules of logic and philosophy are useful, but I do not believe that they by themselves can prove or disprove anything. I think that they can only affect the belief of whether something is true or not. And the belief of something is a religious endeavour.