(August 13, 2009 at 7:11 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: As to whether you will accept them, I am afraid I consider it irrelevant.
So you're in effect content to talk to yourself?
Or are you specifically talking of me?
Anyway, if we are to proceed. Perhaps we should be clear on this definition of "God" that you are claiming to somehow be able to prove...
I define him as the supernatural creator of the universe, do you?
In which case, where is he? Or what evidence do you have that somehow shows he exists? This talk of transcendence does fuck-all for his existence, because not only is there no evidence for transedence, but transcendent things can exist without God. And to speak of a transcendent mind is more complex than something that's merely transendent. So you are speaking of something more improbable of transcendence. And you are yet to provide evidence for transcedence, "God", any 'objective mind' that you speak of (whether you are using that as just another synonym for God...or not).....or indeed, actual 'logic' that isn't conceptual.
'Logic' exists inside our heads and on paper, it's a way we measure our percieved apparant rationality of the universe which in our experience seems to exist. There's no evidence that 'logic' or any 'values' objectively exists outside the universe. 'Truth' can only exist outside in the sense of existence itself existing objectively, and it being objectively 'true' that something either does or does not exist.
So where's your evidence for God, anything transcednent whatsoever, or 'logic' or any 'values' whatsoever, existing objectively 'out there'?
EvF