The Arbitrary Use of Non Sequiturs by Logicians

Those atheists, who used non sequiturs to express their review of my book on Amazon (click), have used logical reasoning blindly. This blindness is a joke and comes from the inability of scientists to distinguish living and nonliving things properly. This blindness has its deepest origin in the field of physical science and its theory that all things are physical. This theory is false. The debating opposition of this physical theory is the fields of philosophy, theology, and religion. However, since 2006, my scientific proof of God is changing this debate in favor of philosophy, theology, and religion.

Last May, logicians used the non sequitur to devalue me and my book. However, their misuse of non sequiturs does not seem to be caused by those logicians who reject God because the rejection of God is a natural human error. Thus, I believe that the general misuse of the non sequitur by logicians is related to the blind acceptance of empiricism, the rejection of the writings of Immanuel Kant on the Critique of Pure Reason, the lack of knowledge about Kant’s Critique, and the work of Friedrich Hegel. Colleges and universities have not been helpful on this problem.

Physical scientists can boil water in a pan, cup, or test tube. But, they cannot know the pan, cup, or test tube merely by sensing and measuring their phenomena. Empirical data can produce only empirical knowledge. Only synthetic knowledge or metaphysics can know things. In his thoughts on God as Not-other, Nicholas of Cusa says, "In a hot thing, what is not-hot is the hot thing." In this statement, ‘not-hot’ is the negative thing that empirical data cannot explain. On things, see my earlier blogs on a thing in itself, the Preface to Second Edition and the Introduction in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit.

Clearly, there is a reason why physical scientists cannot find physical atoms, matter, and spacetime. In the 1920s, linguists found that ‘empirical data are primarily symbolic.’ So today, the job of the empiricist is more difficult because the meaning of an empirical symbol depends on the meanings of other empirical symbols. So, today’s logicians can no longer define concepts with Aristotle’s concept definition and logic.