Objectivist Philosophy: The Axioms of Scientific Investigation

[RDK]

The post you're about to read is the beginning of a large rant I'm hoping to complete sometime in the near future. The idea for this topic came to me while reading the "Concept of Existence" thread.

***

In order to stop ourselves from falling into philosophical pitfalls (how do we really know anything?) you have to first accept axiomatic principles about objective reality, or else we end up with an "anything goes" type of mindset (which really means nothing goes).

These axioms, which are the foundation for all scientific research, are (roughly) as follows:

1. I exist.
2. An external objective reality that can be perceived by my consciousness exists.
3. My consciousness, which is predated by the fact of objective existence, allows me to subjectively perceive objective reality.

Axiom #1 implies consciousness as the requirement for a perceiver (I.E., one who perceives reality). This, in turn, automatically implies objective reality (things) as pre-existant to consciousness; perception cannot exist without something to be perceived. The two are tied together by the fact that we are each individual consciousnesses subjectively experiencing a common objective reality.

Regarding the nature of things, the law of Non-Contradiction states that a thing cannot be and not-be at the same time. Objective reality exists independent of subjective perception.

TL ; DR version:

Something is (existence).
Something is something (identity).
Something can be perceived (consciousness).

***

More info will be added to the OP later in regards to Objectivist epistemology and some of Dennett's views of determinism in free will.

 

[GoldShadow]

Regarding the nature of things, the law of Non-Contradiction states that a thing cannot be and not-be at the same time. Objective reality exists independent of subjective perception.

Reminds me of Schrodinger's cat. So based on this, although the cat can be thought of as dead and alive at the same time (this would be subjective?), there is an objective truth, that the cat is dead or alive (this would be the objective reality).

Or quantum theory, which is based on probabilities of where things might be (so they can be thought of as being in all places, more or less, at once); but despite that, each thing does have a definite, objective location.

Random thoughts, that's all.

 

[FastFox]

The doctrine of Monism states that anything that is cannot in any way also not be, which stands true for existence (as well as life and death. Death is the absence of life, therefore something can't be dead and alive, because something cannot have a trait that is absent of itself). Surely if I am "here", and I am aware of my self, then I exist in my mind's realm of perception, as well as those who see me and interact with me. To percieve is also to acknowledge, and if something is acknowledged (whether consciously or subconsciously), does it not then also exist?

Therefore, perception and existence go hand in hand. What we percieve exists. If it did not, we would not percieve it? If you'd like to get theological and invite God into this, the perception of a God is merely faith, or a subjective truth, as we cannot prove that God is real, however the perception of time is true in a sense that it is an objective truth.

I don't like getting philisophical/metaphysical/existential, especially in the Debate Hall. It really is a waste of time, to me, so I'm going to stop.

 

[Reaver197]

Feynman's sum-over-histories comes to mind. A particle technically takes every possible path to go between two points, but when you are considering a collection of particles, the various paths the particles could take are canceled out between each other, resulting in only one, observable path history.

Edit: This "acknowledgment = it exists" stuff is really quite silly. I can acknowledge the fact that I can think of a purple, polka-dotted elephant, but that does not at all mean it exists.

 

[Hive]

the existence thing really dates back forever, and is one of the things i tried to say actually in another thread... :/
I think Cogito Sum really describes it (i think therefore i am). its one of those ethics that is really observable to everyone. from an outside perspective someone can debate your existence, however intrinsically we KNOW it to be true. so in reality it is a sort of objective ethic. ok i can see where you can go with this, "how do you really know?, etc"
But the fact is that it is completely necessary for an ethic to exist, plus it establishes a pretty solid pascal's gambit (wager) whereas if we don't exist our ideas of thought are completely irrelevant so basically the only way to ever be right is to say that you exist. i try to base most of my ideas on these kinds of thoughts, so rdk i think its pretty kwl that you said this! ^^

I tend to think that to be necessarily meaningful then we need to be able to exist, to have an identity, and have the capacity to follow an ethic.

i would argue that reality isn't NECESSARILY objective though (though i like to think that). and i would actually disregard reality if it went against the existence idea simply because it would become meaningless to believe in. however subjectively i just like to accept some things (that my views of reality and logic are based on something, that i have some measure of choice, that ethics establish universal truths, that retaining experiences mean something, etc...). unfortunately i don't think we can really ever get beyond subjective on these, but still....
I think i get where you are going with this- can we look at the accepted ideas of people to form a larger ethic? maybe... however also realize that our views of reality are limited, and as such even science makes assumptions about our ability to perceive the world around us.
some other problems i think-
I also think its important to realize that people's minds are simple and emotional, just because something is true isn't necessarily the BEST way to describe it. when we see someone we like for example we don't say, "wow what a nice pheromone release" etc... we say "wow he/she is beautiful"... even the the former is more accurate it doesn't make sense to describe it complexly.
also the last thing i'd like to point out is that people can have differeing views about things (even paradoxical, and that's ok). for example, when a psychologist goes into a lab it makes sense to view things scientifically (aka that people are cause/effect processes, that emotions/life/etc. don't matter, that they have no choice...) but at the end of the day when they meet someone they still TREAT them and interpret them as creatures, with volitions, and meaningful desires.... they treat them like something more... and they still cling to the belief that truth and their impact will still be meaningful in the end.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Edit: This "acknowledgment = it exists" stuff is really quite silly. I can acknowledge the fact that I can think of a purple, polka-dotted elephant, but that does not at all mean it exists.

You can think of a purple, polka-dotted elephant because you can combine the image of something purple, of polka dots and the image of an elephant. These things do exist indeed. You didn't think of anything new or non-existent...you just combined the thoughts of things that do exist.

However, can you think of a color you've never seen before? You can only think of the color blue because you saw it before somewhere ... same with yellow, green, red and all the other colors you can imagine. But can you think of or imagine a color nobody has ever seen before? A color that lies outside of the spectrum of colors we know? You can not acknowlede the existence of such a color and thus you have to concule that such a color does not exist.

So no, this "acknowledgment = it exists stuff" isn't silly at all.

 

[Reaver197]

You can think of a purple, polka-dotted elephant because you can combine the image of something purple, of polka dots and the image of an elephant. These things do exist indeed. You didn't think of anything new or non-existent...you just combined the thoughts of things that do exist.

However, can you think of a color you've never seen before? You can only think of the color blue because you saw it before somewhere ... same with yellow, green, red and all the other colors you can imagine. But can you think of or imagine a color nobody has ever seen before? A color that lies outside of the spectrum of colors we know? You can not acknowlede the existence of such a color and thus you have to concule that such a color does not exist.

So no, this "acknowledgment = it exists stuff" isn't silly at all.

Well, the color example is, unfortunately, fallacious. The colors that we see are just a slice of the wavelength spectrum that our brains and eyes are able to detect and interpret. Ultraviolet, x-rays, radio waves, and gamma rays could, by such accounts, have "colors", but our measly perceptive abilities cannot see them or discern them. Obviously, I could not describe the "color" of them to you, but that does not mean they don't exist and that their wavelengths wouldn't have a visible attribute to them if one has a visual system capable of "seeing" them.

There is also the various fictional works and creations spawned by mankind. I can see and acknowledge, say, Batman or the squid robots from The Matrix, or feel utterly engrossed by the "history" of the Lord of the Rings, but to say they exist any more than just mere ideas simply because you acknowledge them would be a fallacy. These stories and characters, though created from elements of reality, are non-existent (though, apparently, some people in the world decide otherwise).

I would also like to point out how our flawed perception can lead us to "acknowledge" things that really aren't there. Our brains are so primed to see intent and design in things, that we'll often detect one where there isn't any. Thus, the ideas of boogeymen, ghosts, and gods are born, but they do not exist any more for having people "acknowledge" them.

So, I'm just trying to say that simple acknowledgment of an idea or perception does not provide a strong link to actual existence.

Is this how philosophy debates work? I feel so...obfuscated, but that may be because I'm tired. This whole argument feels so contingent upon semantics.

 

[AltF4]

What I don't like about your assumptions, RDK, is that it relies very heavily on the notion of consciousness. Can you define such a concept? Is you "consciousness" purely a physical entity contained within the contents of your skull? Or are you appealing to a dualistic world-view?

 

[Hive]

i think that because you acknowledge something doesn't mean it necessarily exists, however I also think that there are things that you must believe because believing them is the only way to be correct (pascal's wager kind of logic)., and so in that sense there is a sort of truth. for example if you think about existing, whether or not you believe you exist if you don't exist both beliefs are irrelevant, however when you DO exist only believing that you exist can give you a correct answer. Unlike the purple elephant example where the meaning of your words can be relevant and incorrect as well....

 

[Reaver197]

Wait, so, uh, what are you trying get at? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

I don't quite get the point of asking yourself "do I exist"? If you didn't exist, you couldn't ask yourself the question in the first place.

 

[RDK]

What I don't like about your assumptions, RDK, is that it relies very heavily on the notion of consciousness. Can you define such a concept? Is you "consciousness" purely a physical entity contained within the contents of your skull? Or are you appealing to a dualistic world-view?

This is actually a very good question.

Before we do anything, we should probably define the term "consciousness", which I neglected to do in my OP.

[...]defined from a biological and causal perspective as the act of autonomously modulating attentional and computational effort, usually with the goal of obtaining, retaining, or maximizing specific parameters, such as food, a safe environment, family, or mates.

Basically, consciousness implies the ability to make moral decisions; I.E., value-judgments. What is good for me? What is bad for me? Based on what I know, what should I do? That's why nobody considers things like computers, no matter how fast or advanced, as conscious, at least of the human strain. Computers are good at sheer calculation, but aren't good at making "moral" decisions.

The fact is, nobody has a 100% foolproof answer to your question, and until neuroscience advances sufficiently, we won't. According to all the literature I've read pertaining to the Objectivist view of consciousness, Rand had what could be called a "dualistic" view of the mind and body (although her comments on the matter are few and far between; it's generally considered "incomplete" and up for discussion). Contradictory to what Rand thought, I hold that the consciousness (or mind) is not some independent, pseudo-spiritual, non-physical entity floating off in another dimension somewhere. Only the physical (.:. the measurable) is real. Mental states and processes are, and should be, viewed as biological processes. The mind is as physically-driven as any other part of your body.

Quick example: think of the many forms of mental sickness you can fall under. If you're insane, moody, or even slightly depressed, this is often times caused by a physical, biological ailment of the body (I.E. magnesium deficiency, in the case of depression). This is not always the case, but connections can be made between the various sicknesses of mind and body. It's an accepted axiom of medicine that if you're suffering mentally, your body also begins to display adverse effects. They are invariably linked.

Fortunately enough, the entire philosophy of Objectivism can fit rather snugly with the concept of universal determinism. What is commonly called "free will" can be compatible with deterministic ideas.

Concerning the "free will" aspect of consciousness, I point you to some of Daniel Dennett's works on the mind / brain. He's a 100% materialist, but also makes a good case for the rise of free will in an essentially deterministic, evolutionary universe.

Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions are pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress, as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he coins the term 'evitability' as the opposite of 'inevitability', defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones. Evitability is entirely compatible with, and actually requires, human action being deterministic. Dennett moves on to altruism, denying that it requires acting to the benefit of others without gaining any benefit yourself. He argues that it should be understood in terms of helping yourself by helping others, expanding the self to be more inclusive as opposed to being selfless. To show this blend, he calls such actions 'benselfish', and finds the roots of our capacity for this in the evolutionary pressures that produced kin selection. In his treatment of both free will and altruism, he starts by showing why we should not accept the traditional definitions of either term. This strategy comes down to dissolving problems, instead of solving them. Rather than try to answer certain flawed questions, he questions the assumptions of the questions themselves and undermines them.

While I'm a little uneasy posting this selection without going into deep, deep detail about the terms that are poorly defined by Dennett here, I'm hoping you're at least passingly familiar with Objectivist definitions of things like "selfishness" and "altruism". I myself have not completely made up my mind about much of Dennett's ideas, seeing as how some of it collides with Objectivist principles and he also rejects the conventional concepts of "the self" and "free will", so please take this with a grain of salt.

Here's a selection from an article submitted to the Atlas Society by Objectivist Eyal Mozes, concerning Dennett's body of work:

The alternative view is that causality is a relationship, not between one event and another, but between an entity and its action: the way a thing acts (including the way it reacts to the actions of other entities) is a function of its nature. While it is often convenient to refer to some action as the "cause" of a subsequent action, such usage is derivative; primarily, an action's cause is the nature of the acting entity. For example, the motions of atoms or ions are caused by their mass, electric charge, etc., which determine how the forces operating on them affect their movement. If the nature of these entities were different, then they would act differently in response to the same external forces. In the case of living things, whose actions are self-generated (i.e., the action's direction and energy come from sources internal to the acting entity), entity causation becomes agent causation; the contraction of a muscle is caused by the nature of the animal's muscular and nervous systems. This understanding of causality makes it possible to see how human agents, whose nature includes the ability to weigh alternative courses of action and deliberate about them, and consequently the capacity for genuine choice, act in accordance with causality, not in any way in contradiction to it.

I've struggled with whether or not the idea of the "mind" as an independent agent, with the ability to "weight" decisions non-deterministically, can be reconciled in the face of modern science. However, it is a matter of degrees: given a 100% naturalistic, materialistic view of things, free will is an illusion. Exactly to what degree determinism plays a part in mental decisions is exactly the degree of "free will" we, as entities, have.

I know the phrase "free will" gets thrown around with reckless abandon these days, especially in philosophy, but I'm pretty much unable to throw you a bone here without bringing up enormous questions like the one I outlined above.

Hopefully you guys can give me some of your insights on this so we can flesh out these ideas.

 

[AltF4]

My point wasn't so much as to hijack the thread into a materialist-dualist debate, nor one of Free Will vs Determinism. Just to clarify what you were trying assert.


These sorts of philosophical discussion are often fun, but fruitless, as you seek to infinitely define terms!

For example, the first assumption is merely Descartes's. It asserts that he exists. But that says nothing about what "he" is, nor what "existence" is. Descartes simply makes the claim that the statement must be true for some definition of the terms.


I, however, have to actually challenge assumption number 1. You state also later that:

Objective reality exists independent of subjective perception.

But this is not true! One of the main things we learned from Einstein is that the universe is relative. The very properties of the universe and how it acts depends on the observer. (particularly, his velocity)

Bizarre things begin to happen at high speeds. Even the order of events can be switched around, depending on your speed! It is possible for one person to observe events A, B, then C all while another person observes events C, B, then A!

The state of the universe itself does depend on the state of the observer.

 

[Hive]

i agree with alt4 to and extent (except if a viewer sees c, b, and then a that would mean he's travelling faster than the speed of light, right? weird stuff happens at that threshold ^^, i'm still not sure if its possible. but a lot of science is subjective, to a point. why to a point? because on the larger scale i think it can become objective again. i mean even though the relative velocities, time, space, are different for different observers the laws that define them are sort of objective. one thing i find interesting though is in quantum mechanics how an observer can shift a subatomic particle out of possibilites though. i think that's pretty strange!)
actually rdk, alt4, reaver you guys are dishing out some pretty badass posts ^^ i'm kinda intrigued.

@reaver- what i meant by the existing thing (let me see if i can clarify )
if you don't exist- it doesn't really matter if you believe you exist or not. (and of course it would be impossible to ^^)
and if you do exist- then if you believe you exist you are right, and if you don't believe you exist you are wrong.
So i guess what i meant to show is that while we can't necessarily PROVE one way or another, the only possible solution that can actually be relevant and correct is if you exist and believe you exist. so in a way there is kind of a truth to it ^^ unlike the purple elephant whereas there exists right and wrong conclusions in both scenarios so nothing is actually narrowed down.

@rdk- i love identity stuff! its so interesting and i am familiar with the materialistic, dualist, functionalism views. I don't think there are any answers really ^^ i don't think any of them give a clear answer there are just so many questions with all of them. And personally i can't decide ^^ i sort of switch in between the views depending on which situations i'm in.
The solution-> since we don't know either way, it makes sense to believe in what makes you the happiest. ^^

 

[AltF4]

No, it doesn't require faster than light travel. It's something that will give spaceship races quite a bit of trouble. Depending on how you observe the race, different people can win!

 

[RDK]

These sorts of philosophical discussion are often fun, but fruitless, as you seek to infinitely define terms!

Which is precisely why I love dueling philosophy, all the while recognizing it as practically useless.

Philosophers are useless creatures anyway.

For example, the first assumption is merely Descartes's. It asserts that he exists. But that says nothing about what "he" is, nor what "existence" is. Descartes simply makes the claim that the statement must be true for some definition of the terms.

In my opinion, the very fact that you have the ability to recognize that you exist, for all and any definitions of what "you", is sufficient enough. A lot of the philosophy of "the self" begins with that very axiom--the identity of "I".

Unfortunately, instead of beginning with establishing that an objective reality actually exists, we are born perceiving--when in reality, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that objective reality does exist, it has to be the other way around. The only way to reconcile this is to concede the fact that because I perceive, there must be something to perceive (I.E., the object of my perception).

But this is not true! One of the main things we learned from Einstein is that the universe is relative. The very properties of the universe and how it acts depends on the observer. (particularly, his velocity)

But in physics, there are rules; objective facts about reality that shape and form what is subjectively experienced. We may experience things differently, but that does not mean something is not objectively happening.

I remember a long time ago, in the notorious "Who Would Ever Believe in God" thread, on of the many tangents that popped up was a solid definition of what really passes for "existence". For weeks on end, the senior debaters spit flames over whether or not "ideas", or subjective products of the mind, fell under the category of "existing". Remember Yossarian?

You might not even recall this, but you used a very simple but compelling argument that stuck with me about how we conceptualize things above and beyond their objective reality. Your example was playing Super Mario on a Gameboy. For all intents and purposes, the character Mario that we envision exists only as an abstract concept in the processes of our minds. In reality, he is a series of computerized code lodged deep within the Gameboy's software. But when we think of Mario, we think of the Italian plumber that becomes "actualized" on the screen as we play; a bunch of black and white pixels.

Here's a good quote pertaining to qualia:

A Movitype screen consists of a matrix — or ‘raster’ as the neuroscientists prefer to call it (from the Latin rastrum, a ‘rake’; think of the lines on a TV screen as ‘raked’ across) — that is made up of an array of tiny light-sources]. A computer-led input can excite these lights so as to give the impression of letters passing from right to left, or even, on the more advanced forms now commonly used in advertisements, to show moving pictures. Maund’s point is as follows. It is obvious that there are two ways of describing what you are seeing. We could either adopt the everyday public language and say ‘I saw some sentences, followed by a picture of a Seven-Up can.’ Although that is a perfectly adequate way of describing the sight, nevertheless, there is a scientific way of describing it which bears no relation whatsoever to this commonsense description. One could ask the electronics engineer to provide us with a computer print-out staged across the seconds that you were watching it of the point-states of the raster of lights. This would no doubt be a long and complex document, with the state of each tiny light-source given its place in the sequence. The interesting aspect of this list is that, although its would give a comprehensive and point-by-point-detailed description of the state of the screen, nowhere in that list would there be a mention of ‘English sentences’ or ‘a Seven-Up can’.

As for your comments on Einsteinian relativity--ever heard of Lorentzian ether?

Bizarre things begin to happen at high speeds. Even the order of events can be switched around, depending on your speed! It is possible for one person to observe events A, B, then C all while another person observes events C, B, then A!

Yes, exactly--the order of events as seen by the perceiver. That does not mean they are not happening in an objectively fixed fashion. You or I may just be experiencing them differently.

Since what happens according to you or me depends on where you or I are standing, doesn't that make it inherently subjective?

I can't seem to find the relevant article I was going to post in here about the very thing you're talking about, and it's pissing me off, because it explains a lot and cites sources containing actual scientific research. The gist of the article was that they flashed a set of two pictures in front of a person's eyes, and then asked the person to recall all he could about the two independent pictures. The first image (or the second and vice versa; I can't remember exactly off the top of my head) being flashed effected the second image in such a way that it actually changed the way the subject perceived both of them together.

 

[Hive]

No, it doesn't require faster than light travel. It's something that will give spaceship races quite a bit of trouble. Depending on how you observe the race, different people can win!

are you.... sure? can you explain this. i thought that special relativity allows the times of the two racers to be closer together or farther apart but i can't see how they could actually be reversed without moving beyond light speed. i could easily be wrong, i was just wondering if you could explain this for me (please?) ^^

say that two racers end a race 1 year apart.-> given the timelike spacetime interval (tau)^2=t^2-s^2 (where tau is the wristwatch time, s is the frame distance, and t is the frame time)
it should follow that sub light speed velocities are where s<t (did i get that right?). (basically if you travel a lightyear in over 1 year, or more accurately you travel a set distance in a greater time using the speed of light as a conversion) (unless i'm missing something?<-which is totally possible ^^). before you can make these two events switch (racer A going across the finish line and racer B going across the finish line) though you'd need to make both events seem to happen at the same time (tau=0) at some point, and to do this wouldn't you need to reach the speed of light? (s=t)? and to switch the two events wouldn't you need to make s>t? (goes 1 lightyear in under a year?)

edit: maybe it has to do with the differences in velocity instead of just counting them as two events at the finish line? ^^

 

[Delphiki]

Perception does not necessitate reality, it at most implies it.

We cannot say that everything we see is objective. Nor can we actually prove the existence of a consciousness outside of our own. If you want to strip the cogito down to definite truths, there is very little you can posit as true from this purely logical perspective.

1. 'I perceive myself as existing.'
2. 'I perceive a world in which I exist'.

That's about it. Nothing is proven, ultimately. But considering this:

Philosophers are useless creatures anyway.

...I don't think I'll continue.


You are taking leaps of faith while attempting to remain in a logical system. Especially, you assume that scientific method can only be based upon the admitted reality of phenomena, which is not true at all. We do not have to prove a things existence in order to create a system of laws which explain its action.

Also, contradiction is only a result of human logic, and does not really have any proof. We can obviously admit of course, that contradiction is a general rule of phenomena, but we cannot assume that it is a law of existence - thus we must assume it can be broken.

It is frankly very stupid to attempt to create a logical system without first admitting the fallibility of logic itself.

 

[RDK]

Perception does not necessitate reality, it at most implies it.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the OP. I addressed basically everything you're pointing out in this post.

And yes, perception necessitates reality. You cannot perceive "nothing". In order to have the faculty of perception, you must first have something to perceive.

From the OP:

In order to stop ourselves from falling into philosophical pitfalls (how do we really know anything?) you have to first accept axiomatic principles about objective reality, or else we end up with an "anything goes" type of mindset (which really means nothing goes).

The whole point of the thread is that the points I made were axiomatic. They have to be accepted or else all causality gets thrown out the window.

We cannot say that everything we see is objective. Nor can we actually prove the existence of a consciousness outside of our own. If you want to strip the cogito down to definite truths, there is very little you can posit as true from this purely logical perspective.

For all intents and purposes, rational logic via induction is the most reliable form of gathering information about the world around us. If you can come up with some better idea, feel free to write a book about your genius idea and become incredibly rich.

1. 'I perceive myself as existing.'
2. 'I perceive a world in which I exist'.

That's about it. Nothing is proven, ultimately.

Sure it is. In fact, you're assuming that you (the self) indeed exist, in order for you to perceive anything. Also, the fact that you are perceiving something (whatever that may be; you didn't go into detail) proves that there is something to be perceived.

You are taking leaps of faith while attempting to remain in a logical system.

I've already explained why a small leap of faith is necessary for causality to remain intact.

Especially, you assume that scientific method can only be based upon the admitted reality of phenomena, which is not true at all. We do not have to prove a things existence in order to create a system of laws which explain its action.

Give an example.

Also, contradiction is only a result of human logic, and does not really have any proof. We can obviously admit of course, that contradiction is a general rule of phenomena, but we cannot assume that it is a law of existence - thus we must assume it can be broken.

Contradictions merely means that the employer of logical induction has to check one's premises. When whatever pool of information you've gathered so far contradicts with a new observation, that means there's something wrong with your pool of information, and it needs to be revised in order to include the "phenomena".

 

[Zero Beat]

I have a question.

Can god exist in accordance with, and in contradiction to logic in the same way at the same time?

If he exists according to logic, then existing in contradiction to logic is illogical. No question more thoroughly binds god to the realm of the logical. He can't be everything and do whatever he wants. Or can he? I'm not trying to hijack anything, just looking for an answer which abides by logic.

 

[RDK]

I have a question.

Can god exist in accordance with, and in contradiction to logic in the same way at the same time?

If he exists according to logic, then existing in contradiction to logic is illogical. No question more thoroughly binds god to the realm of the logical. He can't be everything and do whatever he wants. Or can he? I'm not trying to hijack anything, just looking for an answer which abides by logic.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, I would assume that were I to believe in a god, in order to be omnipotent he would have to exist outside of the realm of "human" logic.

That, or he logically fits in with the universe in a non-contradictory way, but from our limited perspective it seems contradictory.

I really don't like theism.

 

[Zero Beat]

Cool.

Personally, there's no such thing as something beyond our ability to understand. But, that's not very persuasive to somebody that would disagree with it. Perhaps it would be in order to say that since god is beyond our understanding, there's no way of knowing if the bible is all really a distraction from god so he can weed out the simple and easily misled.

You can't know. I mean, the "you can't know" argument goes both ways. You can't say "he's beyond our undertsanding, but I understand him."