You said: "Concept formation occurs only in the presence of identity."
I say, you cannot have identity without evidence of the identity.
You say: "It matters not from what angle I see a chair; I have learned the concept and can recognize it even by seeing a small part of one I have never seen before."
I say, you cannot accomplish this without evidence of an identity.
We keep going round and round. Neither one can convince the other. We keep repeating the same things, but not getting through.
I think your ideas are valid as far as belief goes, but other than that, I do not see that your ideas can be supported without evidence and the scientific method. Reaching conclusions without science is only belief, no matter how close it comes to reality. To be able to determine one thing causes another is very important, but it cannot prove anything. That something is acausal, by definition is not real, leads us to the concept that it cannot be tested by science. Therefore those types of concepts are beyond the reach of science for the time being. Those concepts and definitions cannot prove that something acausal is anything. You just define something acausal as being impossible. If it doesn't belong to our reality, science cannot for now give us evidence of it. If you define impossible as not compatible with our current reality, then maybe I agree.
I think you are saying that if something is contrary to what it means to exist, then it is impossible. It cannot exist.
I say that you cannot prove something doesn't exist, because you can never get evidence of its identity to prove that something like it doesn't exist. You can form a belief from the lack of evidence, but that is all.
I have given plenty of proof. You simply misunderstand the concept. Proof necessitates a causal chain. God reportedly doesn't. The two are mutually exclusive. The first is a part of reality we use for surviving and the second is a fairy tale. 2+2=4, for sure. Without adding something else in there, there is nothing else 2+2 could be, ever, even on another planet far far away.
And one does not prove that the basics of proof are valid through science, it is an epistemological concept. If reason and logic weren't first epistemologically valid, science wouldn't work. And you want me to prove that the process of validation is valid, otherwise you are going to stick to science, which depends on this process.
@August: Note, it's easier to follow conversations if you hit the "reply" button directly beneath the comment you are responding to.
Regarding nanotubes: why would you assume that the scientist hasn't done his homework and studied the forces at work in building such a hypothetical structure? Even if he ultimately turns out to be wrong (and who knows, such a thing might not even be attempted for hundreds of years), the concept of space elevators is based on scientific method and analysis, not "faith". The two are not comparable.
August, at least carbon nanotubes have the property of actually existing. It is at least plausible that something impressive could be built out of them. Comparing a nanotube space elevator to the concept of god is ridiculous. And there is a difference between "science" and particular scientific claims. Nobody here thinks that every scientific hypothesis will bear out; we know that science moves forward by correcting its mistakes, which means at the leading edge, science gets things wrong. That's why scientific findings are expressed tentatively.
The concept of god is in a different category--it is logically impossible. Thus, it should not be accorded any plausibility whatsoever. There should be no uncertainty about the nonexistence of the logically impossible.
And while the concept of god is inherently irrational, nobody here has made the claim that theists are 100% irrational or that atheists can't believe falsehoods. Humans compartmentalize; devout theists can be perfectly rational in nonreligious endeavors. Atheists are just as fallible as anybody else. But that doesn't mean we are wrong when we show the logical impossibility of god. It doesn't even mean that there must be a chance that we are wrong about this claim.