wild ox

Philosoft,

I apologize for not knowing all of the philosophical terminology. I simply meant that all ideas in our brains refer to either spatial, material entities or non-spatial, non-material entities. But, as you pointed out, this may present a problem for cases such as colors or other properties. You are right.

Maybe I should define physical and non-physical concepts as such:

Physical concepts = ideas which have exact, verifiable definitions.

Non-physical concepts = ideas which cannot be exactly defined or varified.

There is my attempt to clarify this issue. Sorry I irritated you.

Hans

wild ox

I'll jump in and say that I know of no way to prove that no gods or spirits of any kind exists.

Mageth

1) Non-physical concepts cannot be proven or disproved by logic or scientific testing

How about a square circle? Or a true falsehood? Or a triangle with eight corners? Concepts that are contradictions are logically disproved, correct?

One could also argue that 1) is itself a "non-physical concept," and thus cannot be proven.

2) Any concept that cannot be disproved by logic or scientific testing is possible.

I assume in 2) you mean "non-physical concept."

It seems to me the results of the above two statements is simply "any non-physical concept is possible." You're saying in 1) you can't disprove any n-p concept, and 2) thus any n-p concept is possible.

As I've shown above, there are non-physical concepts which can be logically disproven and are not possible.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

wild ox

Mageth,

I didn't consider paradoxes and self-contradictions. Glad you brought them up!

In my opinion, paradoxes and self-contradictions are simply two or more SEPARATE ideas that our mind cannot rationally conceive of as coexisting. Thus, the idea of square and the idea of circle are “CONCEPTS” in of themselves, but a “square circle” is not a concept at all, rather it is two disconnected concepts. The mental quandary of a paradox is the result of our brain trying to do the impossible: make the paradox into a “thinkable” concept.

Thus such paradoxes do not apply to my arguments. Thanks for the clarification.

Mageth

Perhaps, but you have to use logic to make such a deduction, don't you?

The same is true for a "non-physical entity," btw. It's not necessary, or possible, to logically disprove the possibility of a god(s). However, it is possible to logically disprove a particular concept of a god by showing the concept is logically contradictory.

Thus, logic may be applied to disprove, for example, the xian concept of an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient (generally omnimax) god.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

I'll edit the first paragraph of my above post here:

Perhaps, but you have to use logic to make such a deduction, don't you? In other words, to prove that the concept is logically conceivable or that a particular concept is logically contradictory?

Hans

wild ox

I would reduce your argument as follows.

1) Any concept that cannot be disproved by logic or scientific testing is possible.

2) The existence of non-physical entities independent of our minds is a concept that cannot be disproved by logic or scientific testing.

3) The existence of non-physical entities independent of our minds is possible.


The conclusion is difficult though. It argues that anything we can imagine is at least possible, which is the result of premise 1. Reality seems to require a different definition of what is and is not possible.

1) What is possible is what exists or can be made to exist.

2) Unless non-physical entities can be shown to either exist or be made to exist it is not known if non-physical entities are possible.

What do you think? This perspective may offer some light to my previous questions.

Mageth

BTW, I would consider a "square circle," for example, to be a self-contradictory concept, not two separate concepts, as I would a "red square."

You yourself used the term "paradox" and "self-contradictory" to refer to such a concept, both of which imply one object or concept, not two.

wild ox

Mageth,

I think you do not understand my argument.

__________________________________________________
However, it is possible to logically disprove a particular concept of a god by showing the concept is logically contradictory.
Thus, logic may be applied to disprove, for example, the xian concept of an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient (generally omnimax) god.
__________________________________________________

Logic could be used in an attempt to disprove that no entity could be omnipresent.

Logic could be used in an attempt to disprove that no entity could be omniscient, depending on what type of knowledge you refer to.

Logic could not be used, however, to disprove that an entity could not be omnibenevolent, because benevolence is a “non-physical concept.”

The term “god” could not be used in your arguments as well since an exact definition of God could not be established.

That is my whole point from the beginning. Some concepts, such as God, cannot be logically or scientifically disproved because they cannot have exact definitions. They cannot have exact definitions because they have no physical representations.

wild ox

OUTSTANDING HANS! One of the best posts yet!
________________________________________________
1) What is possible is what exists or can be made to exist.
2) Unless non-physical entities can be shown to either exist or be made to exist it is not known if non-physical entities are possible.
What do you think? This perspective may offer some light to my previous questions.
__________________________________________________
I would disagree, though.
I would argue that what is possible is what we do not know with scientific certainty is impossible.

But your premise 2 adds a redeeming quality to your argument. Maybe we should define a new term.

New Term:

“ARGUABLY POSSIBLE”

While it is not known if the existence of non-physical concepts independent of the mind is possible we can say that it is arguably possible. What do you think? Thanks for the clarification.