Abnormal Interests

Oh no! I seem to be off the scale!! Please, somebody help me out with this question then:

On this potentially simplistic atheist-theist scale, which level is someone supposed to be at if one acknowledges the fact that Logic is built on the a priori existence of True and False and that since Truth and the Existence it's based on precede Logic and since "God" precedes Existence, then "God", being outside this realm of Existence and Logic, is free to be both existent _and_ non-existent at once? For simplicity here's a diagram:

God -> Existence -> Truth/Falsity -> Binary Logic (in that order)

Technically, I know that fundamentally I'm neither an atheist nor a theist (and yet both at once) but in order to live in the here and now, I consciously put "blind faith" in Logic regardless of knowing that existence is ultimately paradoxical. Maybe it's sort of like "secular buddhism".

I usually just tell people I'm an agnostic though. I don't feel a practical need to worship anything or anyone much like an agnostic or atheist. And it also saves me the pain of explaining my philosophy of an inherently self-contradictory universe based partly on M-Theory :(

Hmmm

Well I guess someone will always be orthogonal to whatever scale. I think one of the main a priori premises of deductive logic is that nothing can be P and not P at the same time. The idea of Truth and Falsehood is a derivative from this premise and a history of empirical observations that amount to an inductive judgment. Dawkins and I, for that matter, see the question of god not as a deductive issue but an inductive issue. Simple put, what is the probability that there is a god? I say low enough that I can safely proceed as if god (or gods) doesn't exist in the same way I proceed as if unicorns don't exist.

Buy the way, my own view is that the basic premises of deductive logic are based on induction. But defending this idea is a book or two worth of work rather that a comments worth of work.

And then there's the issue of the possibility that god precedes existence. If that is the case, then you are correct that the question of existence doesn't apply to a god. But if this is the case, how can one even say something like, "then "God", being outside this realm of Existence and Logic, is free to be both existent _and_ non-existent at once." Neither the word "existent" nor "non-existent" applies so the conjunct of the two cannot apply either. But then I'm not a "secular buddhism" and I'm not quite ready to accept (any) string or brane theory so I'm not even close to M-theory.

Hehe, great stuff! :)

"Dawkins and I, for that matter, see the question of god not as a deductive issue but an inductive issue. Simple put, what is the probability that there is a god?"

The application of probability to "God", as I explained, would be irrational since the notion of God precedes Existence, particularly when this God (as in the Judaeo-Christian God, let's say) is purportedly Creator of all things. All Logic, whether inductive or not, follows from Existence (Existence being seperate from Non-Existence, that is). Naturally if God creates Existence itself, then he would logically precede it (i.e. be beyond Existence). However that very notion is beyond Logic (i.e. irrational) and so the nature of God will never ever be solved with Logic. Anyone trying to do so is being illogical, including extreme atheists ("ones who are absolutely certain that God does not exist").

For me, I've come to accept by necessity that Existence is paradoxical and beyond Logic to answer. So I choose in this incarnation to have faith in Logic because I take comfort in mathematical regularity. There is no logical reason to worship anything or anyone.

When I die, I will, in a manner of speaking, reenter the paradoxical Shunyata beyond the realm of Existence, whatever that is. Since Logic can never explain what the Beyond is about, Buddhism seems as good as any in giving me a reasonable answer :) Hence I'd be a kind of "secular buddhist" I suppose. Buddhism infused with logical Stoicism, without ritual other than partaking in the purely logical benefits of mental and physical meditation. (Yoga is just plain logical afterall.)

"Neither the word 'existent' nor 'non-existent' applies so the conjunct of the two cannot apply either."

If Logic is based on the distinction of "existent" and "non-existent", then Logic cannot prove the very basis of Logic. So your statement here that "neither the word 'existent' nor 'non-existent' applies so the conjunct of the two cannot apply either" is an unprovable assertion. It may just as well be that both apply at once. Remember, you're stepping outside the bounds of Logic when you ask these questions.

I think this is the problem with cosmologists today that try to explain the very Beginning (i.e. Big Bang) through scientific or mathematical means and failing miserably at it. They too, I think, fail to recognize the boundaries between Logic and the Shunyata beyond, and by doing so, enter repeatedly into an endless cycle of silly debates like the one we're having with each other now, hahahaha. Oh well, sometimes cycles can be entertaining and hard to resist. :)