There are probably many things I disagree with most Christians on, but my answers to the questions would be:
1. I read the first book of Summa Contra Gentiles, and I found the arguments for the existence of a perfectly good, immutable, and eternal God to be persuasive. I think certain elements of ancient and medieval metaphysics (essence/existence, Act/Potency, being & goodness, teleology etc.) offer a compelling and systematic approach to everyday relationships, from which the existence of God is then deduced.
2. Yes.
3. If something implies a logical contradiction then I think it (or one or more components, such as in the case of multiple contradictory statements) must be false. If a conclusion is reached by ordering certain true statements in a logically valid pattern such that it necessitates that conclusion, then I think it must be true. That is to say, I will have to accept the truth of the conclusion of any valid deductive argument if I think that its premises are true.
Inductive arguments and any abductive reasoning in the scientific process is inherently invalid, and I regard it as neither here nor there, so to speak.
1. I read the first book of Summa Contra Gentiles, and I found the arguments for the existence of a perfectly good, immutable, and eternal God to be persuasive. I think certain elements of ancient and medieval metaphysics (essence/existence, Act/Potency, being & goodness, teleology etc.) offer a compelling and systematic approach to everyday relationships, from which the existence of God is then deduced.
2. Yes.
3. If something implies a logical contradiction then I think it (or one or more components, such as in the case of multiple contradictory statements) must be false. If a conclusion is reached by ordering certain true statements in a logically valid pattern such that it necessitates that conclusion, then I think it must be true. That is to say, I will have to accept the truth of the conclusion of any valid deductive argument if I think that its premises are true.
Inductive arguments and any abductive reasoning in the scientific process is inherently invalid, and I regard it as neither here nor there, so to speak.