Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

The fact that there is no internal contradiction means it isn't logically eliminated. So, yes, we get to assume any axiom that isn't contradictory. The *logic* isn't violated.

Metaphysics is bunk. Pure and simple. There is no such thing as valid metaphysical reasoning: only metaphysical assumptions, usually invalid ones.

I won't come up with a metaphysics article because I consider *all* metaphysics articles to be bunk. But, the math and physics articles are very clear about the *logical* possibility of an actual infinite.

The problem I have with 'concrete' objects is that I don't consider the word 'concrete' to be well defined. For example, is an electron a 'concrete object'? Give reasons for your answer. is a neutrino a 'concrete object'? is a photon? These are the *actual* objects from which the universe is built. These are the ones that matter. Whatever your vague notion of 'concreteness' is irrelevant to the actual physics. And if your metaphysics doens't allow the actual physics, then it is simply invalid.

Good. Further conversation on this is impossible because this conversation is about metaphysical concepts and you just declared all metaphysics to be "bunk". I'll leave you with a list of the "Central Questions" of metaphysics--but you probably don't care about any of them, they're just "bunk"...

2.1 Ontology (Being)
2.2 Identity and change
2.3 Space and time
2.4 Causality
2.5 Necessity and possibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysic..._questions


It also sucks for science, since these and other metaphysical concepts are required to have a philosophy of science--without which science cannot exist. Damn, what a shame when they all find out...

These are questions of physics, not metaphysics. They are to be determined through observation. Philosophical speculation can only guide further investigation, not solve the relevant questions. As philosophers approach them, though, yes, they are bunk. Philosophers (metaphysicians) understand so little about the universe because they are bound by their preconceived ideas about how things 'must be' so they lose track of how things actually are.

We do NOT have to answer these metaphysical questions to be able to investigate things scientifically. Again, you are simply wrong about this. All that is required to do science is to formulate *testable* hypotheses. We then use observation to see which hypotheses survive. We do NOT prove things beyond any doubt, only beyond reasonable doubt.

Mathematics is different than science: it is the study of formal systems, which includes logic. It then becomes the *language* of scientific investigation.