Um...
Did you actually read the article?
Nothing said that a circle couldn't exist, just that it was impossible to build a circle with the same area as a square and vice versa. Not sure what that has to do with the existence/non-existence of circles!

No. I think the problem is that ontology is a very abstract philosophical term and you haven't fully understood what it means for something to have no ontology. Not that's a bad thing - I'm not sure I've fully gotten my head around the concept myself. My recommendation is find a book on Amazon to learn some basic metaphysics. This one looks fairly readable.

Why the hell would I read the article when making any kind of shit up is easier?

Duh! Of course it doesn't say that circles don't exist. All I am saying that if you have a set of rules that restrict what can be produced by those rules, it does not follow that nothing exists outside of what those rules can produce.

 

What I am saying is that while it follows that god cannot be produced from logical argument, that is not sufficient to prove non-existence. There is a very specific set of rules to produce logical truth. Those rules restrict what can be known to things within that system, not what exists in an absolute sense.

 

I admitted to this in my initial post.

Thanks for the recommendation.

So, wavefreak, you want to ponder some geometry, don't you? "Here's one for you" (I just love that Tickle saying):

1. Two straight lines, 90 degrees angle between them (consider we are working in 2D). You take one and start turning it rightwards. The intersection point between them moves to the left. It moves on and on, until it's a mile away from you. You go on turning the line rightwards. What is the precise moment in which the two lines become parallel ?

2. Put two lines, in an angle of a random value. Two hundred miles away, on each of the lines, mark one point. Start lowering the angle by moving the two lines towards one another. What is the exact point in which the angle is 0?

Also, on the squaring circle problem, think this way: try creating a cube with the same volume of a sphere, a pyramid with the same volume as a cone, etc.

And no, this doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

There seems to be a giant leap between the circle stuff and the ontological question that you haven't explained, so I'm just going to respond to the ontological question.

The fact that there is no ontology given for the supernatural means that discussing it is meaningless. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of anything, but in order to make a case that something exists, you need to have some idea what that thing is, and therefore the lack of an ontology for the supernatural undermines a great number of arguments that describe how it solves some mystery (such as arguments for a supernatural creator). Think about it: Can you really claim that a god solves the universal fine-tuning dilemma if you don't even know what that god is?

Hope that's roughly the kind of response you were looking for.

Thank you. Yes, I think this is what I am groping after. It makes perfect sense to me that to make a logical arguments about something that the definition of that thing must be constrained. I agree that, for example, supernatural really doesn't mean anything - everything that exists is part of nature.

Is it fair to say that lack of an ontology prevents rational discourse but does not prove non-existence? I realize this does not prove existence either and that is not what I am implying. Basically, lack of an ontology allows you to prove or dis-prove nothing.

Cool, I think we agree on most or all of this. I would just add that because the burden or proof is on the claimant, the inability to prove something without an ontology is much more a problem for the person making a claim of god, not the person denying the claim.

So far, nearly everyone in this forum has assumed that my theism is similar to Evangelical Christian's. If I stick around long enough, it will become clear that this is not the case. So far, I have been patient with the level of contempt and disdain for theisem that is liberally thrown about, but my patience has limits. Life is too short. I personally prefer to enjoy it. This doesn't feel like fun.

 

 I will only go as far as saying god is part of what exists. I make no claims about omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, free will, sin, redemption, etc.

I think he's just trying to probe your beliefs. I too am curious to know what sort of god you believe in.

I have to point out that nearly anything could meet this standard. I realize that you are not giving a complete definition of what you believe to be god, but this is just a little too vague to be useful. I could be god if this were the only standard.

However, I would also understand if you do not want to reveal more about what you consider god to be right now. I think the ontological question has been answered, so this thread is effectively dead.

Very well. I try not to assume anything (which is hard). I'll be interested to hear about your non-Evangelical-Christian theism. From what you've said so far, I'm hypothesizing that you are a pantheist (Spinoza fan?), panentheist (possibly a follower of Hartshorne's process theology?), or something along those lines.

Shaun