{Theory and Verification [continued (3)]}[19th June 1988]

[Redbook5:175-176][19880619:1707]{Theory and Verification [continued (3)]}[19^th June 1988]

19880619.1707

The testing of any 'metaphysical' theory may involve several different approaches:

(1) Is it rational? I say 'rational' rather than 'logical' because the use of logic, alone, seems to defeat itself at a certain point. Take, for example, the First Cause argument.

(The first counter-argument – that by asserting necessary existence we do not assert that it is God – seems to me [to] be adequately answered by saying that God is simply the name we give to the necessarily rather than contingently existent; its nature is quite a separate issue, and of lesser importance.)

The second counter-argument seems to be saying that as causal relationships break down outside Time, no Cause is possible: i.e. that logic cannot take one any further. However, the logic that takes one to that point seems unanswerable: we still need an initiator; and if logic cannot take us beyond that point, that is a fault of logic, and does nothing to refute a concept which it is not capable of comprehending.* Logic, after all, has created the need; the logical problem must have a solution of some kind, and God is the label given to the solution.

Rationality seems to be a slightly wider concept than logic,** and yet more surely grounded.: wider because it may be able to adapt to different perspectives;*** more surely grounded because it takes account of experience and even common sense.

*Nor to prove it.... <891010>

**[One possible way to distinguish the logical and rational methods might be to consider that the former are based on conscious (or deliberate) assumptions only, whereas the latter may be based on conscious (or deliberate) and unconscious (or intuitive or collective) assumptions. <20180511>]

***as in the reply to the second counter-argument (above).

[But surely in principle 'pure' logic can operate from any viewpoint or perspective? – Perhaps in practice, rationality is better at it, i.e. gets more practicably usable results.. <20180511>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger02072018]