"How could you believe that?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?"
(07-12-2012 03:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 03:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So,
A) I though we had already established that neither were aligned with science
B) given the nature of the metaphysical claims, the above is irrelevant anyways
C) given the nature of metaphysical claims, nothing can actually be known because the claim of "god did it and did it so it would look like he didn't" is always valid. So we can never determine anything about reality nor discern fact from fiction.
D) We end up in a whole new argument of arguing about the bible now as some form of useful information in discerning fact from fiction and fantasy from reality despite being unable to discern reality from fantasy because of the nature of metaphysics.

There is another possibility though.
A) all metaphysical claims are bunk

Ocam's razor. The last possibility is simpler, let's just go with that.
A) Yes. But, some use science and history to bolster metaphysical claims.
B) Not if you're dealing with the metaphysical (God).
C) Yes and no. The claims also have to aligned with scripture. In this instance, that claim doesn't align with scripture (God did it to make it look like He didn't).
D) Why would anyone outside of Christianity care about what the Bible says?

A) That is an unanswerable question because there isn't proof for it or against it.

-You can't absolute stuff... you have to remain open to the possibility of anything, no matter how low that possibility is.
Not trying to necro a thread, but I don't get on much during the weekends because of a lack of internet (except on my phone) and a kid pooping and crawling towards the stairs. So, I waited until this morning to reply and jump back into the fray (I have since washed away my brain-hurt with booze and am ready for new brain-hurt).

A) brings us back to the point that if you want to discuss metaphysical claims, but the metaphysical can't be examined physically, then science cannot bolster their claims about the metaphysical. They can use science for the physical claims (i.e. evolution, The Big Bang, etc) but they can't bolster any metaphysical claims via science. Ergo, they can't use science to bolster their theological beliefs, despite how much they would like to do so.

B) Wait, so in all of our previous posts, we talked about how any metaphysical claim was a valid as any other. How one could not know anything about the metaphysical. And you made the claim that the metaphysical can somehow interact with the physical world while not being impacted itself (ignoring the point about being unable to know anything about it or Causality). Despite all this, you still seem to want to contradict the point I have tried to reiterate again in my reply here to point A. I do not understand how you can establish a connection between science and the metaphysical, it makes no sense. All I see is the argument from ignorance.

C) "Yes and no" is the dodgiest answer I have read from you KC, come on. Your second sentence seems a little better, but it asserts that you can demonstrate the validity of the bible as an authoritative and reliable text. You don't believe in a literal flood or 6 day creation, do you? If any piece of the bible can be shown to be wholly inaccurate or so unlikely so as to not warrant any real merit, how can any claim that aligns with scripture be more valid than one that doesn't? Or, how can a claim that aligns with biblical scripture be more likely to be valid than a claim that aligns with any other theological system? (i.e. Buddhists were at least closer to an accurate estimate of the age of the universe, but were still quite wrong.)

D) If the bible is actually true and contains the answers to all questions and is the only way to know anything (especially metaphysical), then everyone should want to know. I don't ask these questions because I am being satirical. I don't rip on the bible because I have always looked at it as I do now. I ask because some people seem convinced they are right and that I (by default) must be wrong. And I hate being wrong. I want to amend my beliefs to learn the truth (as best I can anyways), but no believer has ever been able to show me reasoning, evidence, or a logical argument that made me think my views were the less rational ones. At best, I have heard people make arguments that sounded good, and have no obvious flaw in their ultimate conclusion, but upon examination it becomes apparent that some initial premise/assumption is invalid or twisted to fit the conclusion they want to reach.

As for your response to my claim that "all metaphysical claims are bunk"
KC "That is an unanswerable question because there isn't proof for it or against it."
Precisely. The metaphysical claims are either unknowable or appear as though they do not exist. That which does not exist, looks very similar to that which is invisible.

I can't give you evidence against something. I can't disprove anything. I can't show you positive proof for the nonexistence of something or something having never occurred. I can however show you as Laplace did, that answers in the natural world are demonstrable, rely upon the physical world only, and that we can in fact determine the likelihood that they existed/occurred. That doesn't prove them, it doesn't disprove the existence of any metaphysical realm, but it certainly does not help the case of metaphysics. It flies in its face. It shows that metaphysics is an unnecessary claim for explaining anything in the physical world (or the universe as we know it).

In short, it puts the ball in the court of metaphysics to prove itself, but metaphysical claims all seem to be of a nature where they are un-provable. Why then should anyone believe them? What makes any metaphysical claim even remotely plausible?

I ask because you would obviously consider some to be absurd, but how does one pick the absurd metaphysical claims out? I have a feeling you may feel inclined to go back to the bible and biblical authorities here, but let me just say that if this is where you want to head, then we also need a way of showing the bible to be accurate and reliable. So, the conversation may have reached a dead end.

Here is what I see, metaphysical claims are faith-based. Those that make them want them to be evidence-based and attempt to reconcile them with science. They do so in an erroneous way using the argument from ignorance. They would be better served to just say that their metaphysical beliefs are faith and nothing more. No need to try and drag science through the mud.

49ers won this weekend and I am happy. Now to make a presentation and prepare my brain for hours of endless grading this week. Ugh.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 10:05 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Vosur - 07-12-2012, 10:14 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 10:53 AM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 12:05 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 12:11 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 12:51 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 01:03 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Vosur - 07-12-2012, 01:08 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 01:09 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 01:17 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 01:23 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Vosur - 07-12-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 03:02 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Chas - 07-12-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - Vosur - 07-12-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: "How could you believe that?" - TheBeardedDude - 10-12-2012 09:46 AM
Forum Jump: