Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Synthetic A Priori

I've noticed that most proof about god's existence rely solely on logical arguments. For me, that is not a very effective way of proving the existence of a "sentient being" (AKA God). R

As one Christian have said, "I want to clarify is that by God I mean the immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause or in simple words a SENTIENT BEING that caused the conception of the universe." (emphasis mine) 

Does giving me a logical argument about the principle of causality serve as evidence that this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" exists? Even if I will accept (without admitting) the principle of causality, it will not established an "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" as existing by fact. Even if I will add the word "Necessary" to  "sentient being," will it still not become a statement of fact. We will only have statements of logic about the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being." And the reason? Dyan papasok ang synthetic description.

Why I am asking for a synthetic description of this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being (AKA God)?" Para hindi tayo ma-stuck sa definitional truth. 

Logic is a process. It is a process built on rules and definitions so we can mix and match sets of propositions. That's it! Truth in logic is truth by definition ONLY. So if we say that this immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" (AKA God) is the uncaused-cause (base on the principle of causality) - that is a logical conclusion. But logic can't show that such possible beings actually exist. It will not give the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being (AKA God) a factual existence. We need more than that. 

What is an "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being? According to C.S Peirce, words mean anything if we could able to test it. If these words have no practical effect, they are meaningless. So going back to the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being, what the hell is that? It cannot be tested, it cannot be proven, in other words, it's devoid of meaning. Now, in the verification principle of Karl Popper only factual truths (not logical forms) can be verified. With the absence of verification, proof of existence will be improbable.

According to Immanuel Kant, A Priori knowledge can be synthetic. In math for example, 36 x 25 = 900. Now, how do you know? Well, David Hume said that since it is universal and necessary, therefore math is A Priori. Yet Math is also synthetic. Since we know that by definition 36 x 25 = 900 we also say through empirical observation, 36 objects (let say mangoes) multiplied 25 times makes 900 mangoes yet this is not included in the definition of 36 x 25 = 900. That makes it synthetic.  

Using this on the existence of the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god), to prove this "sentient being" only through logical (A Priori/analytical) proof will only give us empty definitional truths without any reference from the outside world (beyond ideas that only stays inside the mind). To established the existence of this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god) it has to be sympathetic A Priori.

As I have already shown, the failure of providing a synthetic description (not just mere logical definition of words or symbols) of this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god) justify my position that this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god) doesn't exist.

No comments: