Sigh. Cane, the logically impossible cannot be the basis of a scientific hypothesis. Scientific disproof of the logically impossible is strictly unnecessary, not to mention nonsensical. It is methodologically impermissible to proceed from the logically impossible to the scientifically hypothetical. Reason proceeds by steps, and if you encounter a step that makes no sense, proceeding beyond it on the same path lands you in the realm of the purely imaginary. Logical impossibility precludes scientific consideration, let alone investigation. That is the entire thrust of our argument, and you seem incapable of grasping this simple, fundamental concept.
There is a directional arrow to investigation, and you seem blind to this. If something is logically impossible, it doesn't even get out of the starting gate with respect to science. It is appallingly incorrect to say that, "science cannot touch where logic treads". Science depends on logic for guidance as to what may be properly investigated, and logic is used throughout the scientific investigative process. Science and logic are deeply intertwined, but the set of things that science can investigate is strictly limited to the set of things that are logically possible. It is correct to amend your assertion to, "science cannot touch where logic forbids it". Why you can't or won't see this is beyond me.
Identity is inextricably linked to existence, every part of it, always. For something to exist it must have identity, necessarily, or you could not even consider it.
Then why consider god, toothfairies, godzilla, superman, santa claus, and thousands of other identities? If Identity=something that exists, then Identity does not equal something that does not exist.
I have been trying to get someone here to define Identity and other terms you have used, but you have not even tried to give me a simple answer.
Here is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language definition of identity:
i·den·ti·ty (-dnt-t) KEY NOUN:pl. i·den·ti·ties
- The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known: "If the broadcast group is the financial guts of the company, the news division is its public identity" (Bill Powell).
- The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.
- The quality or condition of being the same as something else.
- The distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality.
- An equation that is satisfied by any number that replaces the letter for which the equation is defined.
- Identity element.
Which one are you talking about?
Or do you prefer this definition of identity found here:
In logic, the law of identity is the first of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A, expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.
I do not insist on you proving or disproving anything. What are you talking about? God would include omniscience, omnipotence, creation, magic and other contradictory non-identities. I do not claim to have, nor do I behave in a way that would suggest any of these qualities. I have an ego, as does every thinking being. Mind is a singular thing, by nature. This is ego. The complete absence of faith is a good thing. All my principles and beliefs are based on reason, not the absence of it. I hold noncontradiction and causality as metaphysically universal. This is antithetical to God and faith. In a mild way, you are lashing out emotionally and calling me mean, through your invalid definition of ego. Ego is good and necessary for thought. Megalomania is someone concerned with only themselves, without proper regard for others. I would say that someone who values reason through noncontradiction is more likely to take reality for what it is and notice any over emphasis on anything including themselves. Your arbitrary link between a God complex and your inadequate definition of ego and megalomania is weak, at best.
God, as you are describing, defining, him, giving him an identity, that idea of god is being considered even though that identitiy does not exist. That identity should not even be considered.
Identity is not well defined by you, so confusion ultimately comes from that lack of definition, understanding.
I have consistently defined Identity as a definition, but now I will confuse the matter because someone told me that my definition of "definition" is ridiculous. I will post it here:
A "definition" [Identity arrived at without evidence]...
Identity is an idea, a description, a definition that is correct when evidence is found that it exists, and only possible or impossible if evidence has not yet been found for it. Wrong = impossible in my book. In science, you are either wrong or right. Could you say that the wrong conclusion is impossible? Maybe, but I don't think it matters much unless you are trying to determine which question has the best possibility of being right.
I would like to amend my words. Sure you can consider it, but not integrate it without contradiction, because it has no identity that is possible.
Without identity, an idea cannot be integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction. One can certainly try. But if one is intellectually honest, they will recognize and acknowledge that the idea of god, which can have no concrete identity, cannot exist. Sure I am giving the concept of god an identity of omniscience and magic, but those are not compatible with reality, they are not concrete or real identities.
Identity is simply a thing's essential characteristics that make it what it is.
If a thing exists, it has a concrete valid identity. To prove a thing exists, we must have evidence of its identity. But if something, by definition, has only contradictory characteristics for its identity, we do not need evidence of any kind (other than that necessary to build a knowledge base from the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity) to know that it doesn't exist. How could it? How could this .0001% chance that god exists possibly manifest itself? It would negate and destroy the very processes of cognition and science, if it did exist. And since we are cognizant and can do science, there is a zero chance for god, or something that cannot validly or concretely defined, to actually be. You cannot use cognition to demonstrate that the rules of the universe that are necessary for cognition to work are not valid, for this is what skeptics are actually suggesting. Our cognitive process of knowledge acquisition is valid. That's how come we can type complex groups of inter-related concepts on our computers and send them wirelessly across the planet in seconds.
Without essential characteristics, a thing cannot be. You need to have a valid identity to be real. A person does not need to see this essential aspect for it to be possible or real, it only need be reasonable to be possible. To be known, perceptions or conceptions must be integrated without contradiction contextually and hierarchically. God cannot be integrated without contradiction because it does not have an identity that is possible. To positively know something that is possible, we need evidence. To know that the impossible can't happen, we don't.
There were zero definitions 1 billion years ago, but there was plenty of identity. As I tried to explain before, identity is necessary for existence. Definition is done only by intelligent beings (humans are the only beings that I know in this category, maybe some chimps or dolphins too). Existence, or having identity, is done by, or part of, everything in the universe.
As far as the wrong conclusion being possible, I'm not sure. I would say that it is possible for someone to come a to a wrong conclusion, as you are with your certainty of the impossibility of certainty, but if your conclusion is actually wrong, which I know it is, it cannot be. Something is true or false as it compares to the one reality. If I show you that 11+10 is 21, we can know that it is not 35. 35 is the wrong description of 11+10 and cannot exist as the sum of it. If something is wrong, then it does not accurately represent reality. So, if proven to be wrong, then yes, it cannot exist in the way that it is wrong. Showing you that 10+11 is 21 is proof that it is not 35 just like showing you how we form concepts and integrate them in a noncontradictory way to form knowledge is proof that the impossible cannot happen.
Impossible things are definitely untestable.
However, I think it would be possible to have something that is both possible and untestable. Say, the total mass of the earth, circa 1 AD was W.xyz kilograms.
I am not referring to a particular Feynman video. As I suggested before, you can certainly find one yourself.
Sure, if you wish to qualify your thoughts into a valid idea with a proper essential characteristic, i.e., hubris, arrogance, fine, but still don't see any relevant link between me being certain that the impossible cannot happen, you thinking that I am arrogant and that this has something to do with God and faith, when I hail objectivity, reason, causality and noncontradiction. I will amend my philosophical commitment to causality and noncontradiction when another idea changes my entire philosophy as to make more sense as a whole. The way I see it, an objective universe where causality and noncontradiction are universal makes the most sense overall. I believe nothing without it being consistent with natural, not supernatural, law. There is no room for faith in my life. And you calling me arrogant and telling me I have a god complex is quite ad hominem and a demonstration of your weakness, no? Is my ego not actually and appropriately big enough to wax philosophical? Have I not done the requisite reading and consideration? What if I had an advanced degree or two in mathematics and/or physics? Why don't we stick to the material and not the person?
August, Fullerenes have always been logically possible. They were considered physically impossible by many people, perhaps, owing to the seeming difficulty in creating them, but there was obviously no logical reason they couldn't exist, since, in fact, they always have. That particular arrangement of carbon atoms in no way violates the principles of chemical bonding. This example is moot.
Wave-particle duality is a better example, but since wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior are not exhibited simultaneously, this doesn't constitute a logical contradiction. This is like saying flying cars are logically impossible because sometimes they drive and sometimes they fly.
Logic is not dependent on perspective. What a thing looks like is dependent on perspective.