Comment: Umm I'm not so

(See in situ)


Umm I'm not so

convinced with the entirety of your argument. Are you familiar with Kant's Metaphysics? Specifically on Space and Time, as well as his Laws of Contradiction?

Kant makes a very plausible argument that space and time are both empirically real and
transcendentally ideal, and takes these as apriori truths. Here's
a brief explanation:

Space is the a priori form of “outer sense,” i.e., the faculty by which we represent “objects as outside us,” i.e., as “in space.” It is only through the representation of space that we can experience things as distinct from ourselves (as distinct from our inner mental states). As Kant says:

For in order for certain sensations to be related to something outside me (i.e., to something in another space from that in which I find myself), thus in order for me to represent them as outside and next to one another, thus not merely as different but as in different places, the representation of space must be their ground. [p. 175]

Time is the pure (a priori) form of inner sense, i.e., our awareness of our own inner mental states. We should be clear from the start (and we will come back to this later) that we have “no intuition of the soul itself, as an object” [p. 174]; that is, we do not intuit the self (or soul) “as it is in itself,” but experience even our own inner mental states only as they appear to us as “inner determinations … represented in relations of time.” [p. 174]

While time is strictly only the form of inner sense, it is also, by implication, the form (with space) of outer sense. That is, “time is the a priori condition of all appearance in general.” [p. 175] This is because our intuitions of outer objects are themselves inner mental states which are, as such, subject to the same temporal organization as any other inner state:

Time is the a priori formal condition of all appearances in general. Space, as the pure form of all outer intuitions, is limited as a priori condition merely to outer intuitions. But since, on the contrary, all representations, whether or not they have outer things as their object, nevertheless as determinations of the mind themselves belong to the inner state, … this inner state belongs under the formal condition of inner intuition, and thus of time…. [p. 174-175]

So, while we experience our own inner states as temporally but not spatially ordered, we experience things outside ourselves as occupying a determinate location in both space and time.

I'm missing your point in how logic requires faith, especially in the sense I get your using the term. logic is merely a construct to reason, and there are absolute truths. 2+2= 4 is a logical truth, it doesn't require faith that 2+2 may = 5. We use reason to derive this conclusion, not faith.