Logically rationalize God

[xerx]

BTW, this is a ridiculous quote. Let's say that I wanted to prove a triangle had 180 degrees.. How the hell would I do a scientific study on this? I mean ok, it isn't scientific... who cares? The whole idea of a priori is that it isn't empirical... it is self evident based on logical reasoning. So should we go around and pretend like triangles don't have 180 degrees because we can't create a real falsifiable hypothesis.

"God exists" *is* an empirical claim.

"A euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees" is a theoretical claim that's true by definition. On the other hand, if someone had said that "euclidean triangles exist," it would also be an empirical claim—a speculative one, given that a triangle has never been observed anywhere in nature, and only appears to exist inside the mind.

[Hitta]

"God exists" *is* an empirical claim.

"A euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees" is a theoretical claim that's true by definition. On the other hand, if someone had said that "euclidean triangles exist," it would also be an empirical claim—a speculative one, given that a triangle has never been observed anywhere in nature, and only appears to exist inside the mind.

You've already stated that god can't be logically deduced(which I disagree with.. I think god is pre-contained within the laws of the universe) or god can't be empirically proven(which I'm not sure is completely possible, perhaps you could do something like dig into the origins of human consciousness or something). Instead of going back and forth pretending like you are trying to be helpful in this thread, just go ahead and tell everyone they are wasting their time and move on. For me "God exists" is not an empirical claim... it is a synthetic a priori claim .

[xerx]

You've already stated that god can't be logically deduced(which I disagree with.. I think god is pre-contained within the laws of the universe) or god can't be empirically proven(which I'm not sure is completely possible, perhaps you could do something like dig into the origins of human consciousness or something).

Uh, no. I'm completely open to the possibility that our science is woefully incomplete and that certain mystical ideas can be studied empirically at some date in the (far) future. I mean, physicists are openly discussing possibilities like atoms having consciousness, or that we live inside a computer simulation.

Frankly, I hope something like a sentient ultra-consciousness does exist to offer up some answers. But from our current (classical) conception of the universe, it would be erroneous to say that specific metaphysical claims have empirical backing (this is my original point), which is entirely appropriate given that metaphysics literally means beyond physics.

Instead of going back and forth pretending like you are trying to be helpful in this thread, just go ahead and tell everyone they are wasting their time and move on. For me "God exists" is not an empirical claim... it is a synthetic a priori claim .

Which doesn't therefore mean that all synthetic a priori claims are true. A logically consistent system isn't true just because it is logically consistent, making your system of rationalizing God very unpersuasive.

You characterization of empiricism is also complete b.s. This is because empirical knowledge is founded on synthetic a priori claims (think of the use of mathematics in the hard sciences). I think you have this funny conception that empiricism = synthetic a posteriori―it isn't.

[Hitta]

You characterization of empiricism is also complete b.s. This is because empirical knowledge is founded on synthetic a priori claims (think of the use of mathematics in the hard sciences). I think you have this funny conception that empiricism = synthetic a posteriori―it isn't.

Actually, I've already stated otherwise in a previous post. All empiricism has to be based in some sort of intrinsic ideal or an a priori foundation(whether logically accurate or inaccurate). So no, that is not true. I will say that that at least a portion has to be synthetic a posteriori. The only reason I brought the distinction up was that the type of god I'm referring to would be very difficult to scientifically validate even if we increase our scientific capacity 10,000 fold. It's hard to scientifically study something that is intrinsic in every single thing in existence. I believe there could be scientific evidence to back it up in case by case basis, but you are still only studying very definite things and not actually proving the overall point. As such , if you only relied on the scientific/empirical, there would always be doubt. There is nothing to really truly point at and define variables. And while my deductions I feel are logical and a priori , I'd be lying to say that there isn't a posteriori components embedded in there.