Metaphysical proof

[Mr.Badham]

Is there something that isn't metaphysically possible?

Metaphysically speaking, couldn't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, don't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, all gods are believable.

Right?

Can any of this be proven incorrect?

[Divine Insight]

Metaphysically speaking, all gods are believable.

Right?

Wrong.

Can any of this be proven incorrect?

I think this can ultimately depend on what a person accepts as proof. Obviously we have formal system of logic. But even our formal logic is just a system of reasoning that can only be applied after unprovable premises have been accepted as "self-evident truths" upon which to apply the formal logical reasoning.

People, including mathematicians, philosophers, and even logicians themselves often argue over the validity of what we accept as "self-evident truths" (or premises) upon which to begin our logical system of argument.

Most people are unaware that all human reasoning (i.e. all logic) necessarily begin with, and relies upon the acceptance of at least some primal unprovable premises, that can only be argued are "self-evident" but cannot be proven to be so.

Mathematicians have even shown examples of this with the various types of geometries as a prime example. What we decide to accept as a primal premise can change the outcome of what is logically reasonable. For example, in Flat, or Euclidean Geometry the sum of the angles of all triangles necessarily add up to 360 degrees, or 2 Pi radians. And pi itself is always a constant.

However, if we change an unprovable premise we can create two other logically consistent geometric models: Spherical Geometry, and Hyperbolic Geometry. In these Geometries the sum of the angles of a triangle is not a constant, and neither is the value of Pi.

Insofar as we are aware, all three of these geometries may be physically possible since the required premises may all be possible under various conditions within our physical universe. None the less, these three "logical formal geometries" yield different answers depending on what premise is in play.

There are many other examples in logic as well. So logic itself is not as iron-clad as many people have come to believe.

None the less, once we have defined a mathematical system with some rigor, we can then demand a very specific logical answer to a given question. For example having defined what we mean by rational and irrational numbers, we can prove via logic that there cannot be a rational solution to the operation of the square root of 2. That can be proven based on the definitions of rational and irrational numbers.

~~~~~~

Now all of the above might seem highly mathematical, but if you follow the reasoning above you can see that what make logical sense and can be proven or disproved using logic, can often depend upon definitions, premises, and the rigor of the system under consideration.

~~~~~~

For the above reasons I hold that Gods can be disproved whilst others cannot. And the reason I hold this position is because various Gods have been "defined" in various different ways. Some have been defined in ways that can be easily used to prove that they are logical contradictions, and others have not.

As an example, we can look at Greek mythology and the "God of Gods" in that paradigm which is Zeus.

Can we prove that Zeus cannot exist? I hold that we cannot prove that Zeus cannot exist. Why not? Well because there is nothing in Greek mythology that demands that Zeus be truthful, honest, righteous, or trustworthy. Therefore Zeus can play any games he so pleases with us. In other words, he can create a situation where his existence appears to be inconsistent and illogical, but since there is nothing preventing him from deceiving us, he can actually get away with doing that.

So we can't prove that Zeus cannot exist.

But now we can ask if this is the case with the Biblical God. And clearly it's not the case. The Biblical God is decreed to be all-righteous, trustworthy, loving, benevolent, etc. However, it can easily be shown via the Biblical scriptures (i.e. the definition of this God) that in order for this God to exist he would necessarily need to contradict these very traits that he is supposed to possess. Therefore we can easily prove that he cannot exist because his existence would be a logical contradiction (just as the existence of a rational solution to the square root of 2 would be a logical contradiction in mathematics).

Thus, even "Metaphysical Gods" can be proven to be a logical contradiction if they are well-enough defined. And the Bible defines the Biblical God well enough to prove that this God would be a logical contradiction.

Zeus, however, could exist, because there is nothing in Greek mythology preventing Zeus from deceiving us. There is nothing in Greek mythology that proclaims that Zeus has to be benevolent, trustworthy, loving, just, or anything like that.

So in the case of Zeus, we'll just have to hope that he doesn't exist.

The metaphysical God of Buddhism also cannot be disproved. This is because Buddhism was careful to make sure that there are no logical contradictions in their theology. And in fact, if you ask the Dalai Lama, or the original Buddha, they would tell you that if there are any logical contradictions in Buddhism they will then gladly drop those beliefs and consider updating their philosophy with "truths" that are not self-contradictory.

Buddhism is not carved in stone.

So some metaphysical Gods can be shown to be false and others cannot. It all depends on how they are defined within their theological paradigm.

~~~~

And of course, if you want to consider an "ill-defined" abstract notion of "God" where you refuse to even try to guess what it might be like, then that concept cannot be disproved either precisely because it is "ill-defined". How can you prove that something doesn't exist when you don't even have a meaningful definition for what it is, how it behaves, or what characteristics it must have?

You need to have something to work with if you are going to set out to show that something is a logical contradiction. And of course the Biblical paradigm gives you plenty to work with, thus making the Biblical God very easy to disprove. Just like a rational solution to the square root of 2 is easy to disprove.

[JP Cusick]

Is there something that isn't metaphysically possible?

Metaphysically speaking, couldn't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, don't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, all gods are believable.

Right?

Can any of this be proven incorrect?

The one exception is that there can not be a metaphysical concept which defies absolute truth.

That is not possible.

The one absolute truth is that God is real, God is reality, and God rules.

There are absolute principles too which also can not be defied even in a metaphysical concept, and any absolute principle has to come from the God.

As such any metaphysical God or Gods can be possible, but there can not be any true concept of no God whether metaphysical or otherwise.

Of course people do it anyway and as such they make their self as absurd.

[Divine Insight]

The one absolute truth is that God is real, God is reality, and God rules.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Where's the evidence that there is any truth to your claim that a God is real?

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Also, how do you define this "God".

Without a meaningful definition for the concept there is no concept and the Ignostics step up to the plate and hit a home run.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.

[JP Cusick]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Where's the evidence that there is any truth to your claim that a God is real?

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Also, how do you define this "God".

No - it really does not work that way.

Each person has to do their own homework and so I can not do your homework for you.

We can talk about God and truth to other people who know about such things - but people who do not know are thereby excluded - excluding their self by not doing their own homework.

I can not prove that the sky is blue or that the grass is green, because other people have to look and see for their self.

So your demand that we must prove anything to you is just nonsense - it does not work that way.

You give metaphysical denials = thereby your denials are metaphysical.

Without a meaningful definition for the concept there is no concept and the Ignostics step up to the plate and hit a home run.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.

I know how to interpret that word = ignostic

It comes from the root word of ignorance, as in ignoramus.

That is why the Ignostics demand that people must prove anything to them with clear definition and easy to comprehend - because they can not think or decide for their self = thus an ignoramus.

[Divine Insight]

So your demand that we must prove anything to you is just nonsense - it does not work that way.

It absolutely does work that way. After all you are the one who is making a CLAIM:

The one absolute truth is that God is real, God is reality, and God rules.

That's a claim, and you are the one who has made it. Therefore the burden of proof that the claim is true is entirely on your shoulders and it's not a burden for anyone else to disprove it just because you made a claim that has no evidence, or even a meaningful definition for the concept you claim exists.

[JP Cusick]

So your demand that we must prove anything to you is just nonsense - it does not work that way.

It absolutely does work that way. After all you are the one who is making a CLAIM:

The one absolute truth is that God is real, God is reality, and God rules.

That's a claim, and you are the one who has made it. Therefore the burden of proof that the claim is true is entirely on your shoulders and it's not a burden for anyone else to disprove it just because you made a claim that has no evidence, or even a meaningful definition for the concept you claim exists.

I am making a declaration to anyone interested and that is not the same as a CLAIM.

What you are asking is egotistical as if you are the high Judge and the jury over me which you are not.

If you can not comprehend the discussion then you need to step out instead expecting me to explain it to your unreasonable and rebellious satisfaction - because I am not playing that egotistical game.

As already said = each person must do their own homework, and you keep asking me to do your homework by proving it to you.

As again already said = I can not prove to anyone that the sky is blue or that the grass is green, and so you asking for proof is based on your refusal or your failure to go look for thy self = do thy own homework.

If I demand that you prove to me that the sky is blue and the grass is green = then you can not prove that to me - and I would be a fool to claim ignorance of it.

I have already proven the existence and activity of God to my own satisfaction - because I did my homework.

And again I quote what has already been said = That is why the Ignostics demand that people must prove anything to them with clear definition and easy to comprehend - because they can not think or decide for their self = thereby they are an ignoramus.

You are claiming (you CLAIM) ignorance as your excuse - and no one can really cure the ignorance except thy self.

For the concept of metaphysics you get an "F" as in you failed metaphysics.

[Divine Insight]

For the concept of metaphysics you get an "F" as in you failed metaphysics.

I'm sorry, but you have just proven that it is you who has earned an "F" in metaphysics.

Consider your own following testimony:

As again already said = I can not prove to anyone that the sky is blue or that the grass is green, and so you asking for proof is based on your refusal or your failure to go look for thy self = do thy own homework.

The fact that the sky is blue and the grass is green physical characteristic of the physical world. These are not metaphysical concepts.

You even confess that all a person needs to do to prove this to themselves is to go look. In other words, make a physical observation of the actual physical world.

Science has even taken this much further and has created precise definitions for the various colors of light based upon the frequency of light that can actually be measured. Therefore, it's actually quite easy to prove to anyone that the sky is blue and the grass is green (providing that happens to actually be the case at the time of the observation). We all well known that the sky isn't always blue, nor is grass always green. In any case, those physical attributes of the physical world are provable. And this is precisely because we can do our "homework" (i.e. we can conduct well-defined and rigorous scientific experiments or observations to confirm these facts.)

Therefore the sky being blue and grass being green has no place in a discussion of metaphysics.

In the meantime there is no "homework" you can do to prove to anyone, including yourself that a "God" exists. Especially one that hasn't even been properly defined.

You say:

I have already proven the existence and activity of God to my own satisfaction - because I did my homework.

The problem here is the criteria you use (i.e. Your own satisfaction).

Unless you can define that criteria in rigorous and well-defined terms, then it's meaningless to anyone else.

So simply telling other people that they need to do their "homework" when you can't even explain what homework you've done in any clear or meaningful terms is, quite literally, nonsense.

Now you not only have an ill-defined "God" (which is a meaningless concept) but you've just added a claim of having done ill-defined homework as well (which constitutes just additional meaningless concepts).

So you avoid all meaningful communication by simply refusing to define anything in a meaningful way.

I think the Ignostics are hitting a Grand Slam on this one.

[JP Cusick]

The fact that the sky is blue and the grass is green physical characteristic of the physical world. These are not metaphysical concepts.

The reality of a Creator-God is not a metaphysical concept either.

I knew what I was talking about, and mine is still accurate and true.

The sky being blue and the grass being green is easy to prove for anyone who has eyes to see and then gives a true account.

The same for the reality of God is easy to prove for anyone who has eyes to see and then gives a true account.

You are simply going far out of the way to support your own denials of the obvious.

So no - I am not going to try to make you see what you refuse to see, and I am not going to try to make you understand what you refuse to understand.

Without a meaningful definition for the concept there is no concept and the Ignostics step up to the plate and hit a home run.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.

I know how to interpret that word = ignostic

It comes from the root word of ignorance, as in ignoramus.

That is why the Ignostics demand that people must prove anything to them with clear definition and easy to comprehend - because they can not think or decide for their self = thus an ignoramus.

What I say happened has also happened to most of spoiled humanity which is that they expect me and others to try to convert them and so their defenses work because they refuse to be converted and thereby in their ignorant view they continue to win-win-win as if it were a competition which it is not.

This is why Ignostics make their selves into ignoramuses simply by ignoring the information and playing dumb.

To ignore is another synonym for the ignorant concept of Ignosticism.

Just ignore it and then it might go away, and just remain ignorant as if that were a virtue which it is not.

See here that I am not trying to convert anyone, and I do not even have any Church or base group in order to convert, so the ignorant defense against being converted is exposed to me and so I can not discuss any subject with such persons who ignore the pertinence of the topic.

You do not believe the subject and you only want to deny the topic then that is fine - but you have no right to cry and moan because I will not try to convince you because your failure is just none of my concern.

[JP Cusick]

Is there something that isn't metaphysically possible?

Metaphysically speaking, couldn't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, don't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, all gods are believable.

Right?

Can any of this be proven incorrect?

The one exception is that there can not be a metaphysical concept which defies absolute truth.

That is not possible.

The one absolute truth is that God is real, God is reality, and God rules.

There are absolute principles too which also can not be defied even in a metaphysical concept, and any absolute principle has to come from the God.

As such any metaphysical God or Gods can be possible, but there can not be any true concept of no God whether metaphysical or otherwise.

Of course people do it anyway and as such they make their self as absurd.

I very much like and embrace the words given on "The X Files" in that:

• I WANT TO BELIEVE.

That perspective makes all the difference between useless denials and brilliant enlightenment.

When a person does not want to believe then their doors are shut and locked as their own self imposed prison.

Without the metaphysical then life must be really boring.