Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 08-04-2003, 03:20 PM

Good point, but my contention is that all alternatives, whether known now, or not yet known, are going to be metaphysical. So to deny my claim you must say you believe that, somehow, there is an explanation for the world which is not metaphysical.

All that's needed to do to "deny" your claim is to point out that you have no way of knowing that alternatives that are "not yet known" will all be metaphysical. You do not, and cannot, know what is not yet known.

Charles Darwin · 08-04-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JCS
CD: 5. A belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.

Are you suggesting that in order to reject one claim you must first replace it with another? Who made up that stupid rule?

You may not be interested in such questions as where did consciousness or existence come from. You may never think about it. That's fine. But that does not mean that your position does not have logical implications.

Imagine if you argued with a Christian about why you think God doesn't exist, and to all of your arguments the Christian responded by saying he didn't concern himself with that particular issue.

Charles Darwin · 08-04-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
CD: 3. Strong atheism is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.

First you have to prove there was a creation.

Strong atheism has no obligation to believe the universe was created at all.

You misinterpret #3. "Explaining creation" does not assume anything about creation. You are free to explain creation by saying it is infinitely old, for example.

Charles Darwin · 08-04-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
You certainly hold unusual beliefs for a physicist. Anyway, if the Big Bang started from a singularity, there was no space and time "before" it, actually there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. Talking about its causes is then completely meaningless. Now if it wasn't a singularity, then it is questionable if we will ever know with much certainty how the laws of physics differed from the known ones in conditions of such extreme density, but the one obvious implication is that the Big Bang, in that case, was not the beginning of the natural universe, so it makes no sense to try to look for its causes outside nature. At the very least (and this is an understatement), Occam's rasor is overwhelmingly against the hypothesis of "God as Creator".

So why does this demonstrate that atheism does not entail metaphysical beliefs, for example, about the origin of the universe? All you are saying is that you don't like the God hypothesis. OK, fine, but then you are left with a host of other explanations (known or unknown) which as far as I can tell rely on metaphysical assumptions. You can say "well, I don't believe in any of them because we just don't know." Ok, fine, but you must believe that something happened, even if you don't know which something to choose. And I contend that it doesn't matter, because every one of those somethings, whether you want to select one or not, entails metaphysics.

Mageth · 08-04-2003, 03:44 PM

CD, what definition of "metaphysics" are you using? (forgive me if this has already been asked or explained).

Charles Darwin · 08-04-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
Why would anyone need to explain existence of the world?

Well, you don't need to. You could say you don't know, and have no beliefs on the subject. But you and others are not saying this. You have a specific, well-defined, particular belief on the subject. You believe that God (or at least those gods which have been defined) did not create the world. Thus, you are taking a position on the subject.

Biff the unclean · 08-04-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You believe that God (or at least those gods which have been defined) did not create the world. Thus, you are taking a position on the subject.

God what god? Who where? No gods have been defined. No gods have been presented.
Only you telling a story. Telling a warmed over origin myth from semi savages who have been dead for thousands of years.
Why, when you can't back this story up, do you expect people to even consider it?

Charles Darwin · 08-04-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Good point, but my contention is that all alternatives, whether known now, or not yet known, are going to be metaphysical. So to deny my claim you must say you believe that, somehow, there is an explanation for the world which is not metaphysical.

All that's needed to do to "deny" your claim is to point out that you have no way of knowing that alternatives that are "not yet known" will all be metaphysical. You do not, and cannot, know what is not yet known.

Actually, that's not quite right. The state of my knowledge has no bearing on the veracity of my claim. I may not know that my claim is true, but yet it may be true. For you to believe that my claim is false, you must believe that there is an explanation for the world that is not metaphysical. Would you not agree that that very belief, is itself, metaphysical?

Biff the unclean · 08-04-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I may not know that my claim is true, but yet it may be true. For you to believe that my claim is false, you must believe that there is an explanation for the world that is not metaphysical.

That is what we Abullshitists call "telling a lie."
If you claim that something is true that you have no way of knowing is true you are knowingly not telling the truth.
Very common failing among those who are religious...and a very good reason not to believe your claims.

Mageth · 08-04-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Actually, that's not quite right. The state of my knowledge has no bearing on the veracity of my claim. I may not know that my claim is true, but yet it may be true.

But if you "may not know that [your] claim is true", then you can't claim "all alternatives, whether known now, or not yet known, are going to be metaphysical."

For you to believe that my claim is false, you must believe that there is an explanation for the world that is not metaphysical.

Not at all. I did not claim that your claim is false. I claimed that you have no way of knowing that alternatives that are "not yet known" will all be metaphysical; in other words, you cannot posit your claim as true. Your claim may be false or true; neither of us has the requisite knowledge to prove it either way. I can make this argument without believing that "there is an explanation for the world that is not metaphysical."

Would you not agree that that very belief, is itself, metaphysical?

I'm waiting on a definition of "metaphysical." But, at first glance, if I knew of and accepted a physical explanation for the origin of the universe, no, I don't think one would necessarily classify that as a "metaphysical" belief. (Once again, I'd like you to define "metaphysical" as you are using it - it has been given different meanings in different contexts).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2003, 03:20 PM	#111
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Good point, but my contention is that all alternatives, whether known now, or not yet known, are going to be metaphysical. So to deny my claim you must say you believe that, somehow, there is an explanation for the world which is not metaphysical. All that's needed to do to "deny" your claim is to point out that you have no way of knowing that alternatives that are "not yet known" will all be metaphysical. You do not, and cannot, know what is not yet known.

08-04-2003, 03:44 PM	#115
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	CD, what definition of "metaphysics" are you using? (forgive me if this has already been asked or explained).

08-04-2003, 04:41 PM	#120
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Charles Darwin Actually, that's not quite right. The state of my knowledge has no bearing on the veracity of my claim. I may not know that my claim is true, but yet it may be true. But if you "may not know that [your] claim is true", then you can't claim "all alternatives, whether known now, or not yet known, are going to be metaphysical." For you to believe that my claim is false, you must believe that there is an explanation for the world that is not metaphysical. Not at all. I did not claim that your claim is false. I claimed that you have no way of knowing that alternatives that are "not yet known" will all be metaphysical; in other words, you cannot posit your claim as true. Your claim may be false or true; neither of us has the requisite knowledge to prove it either way. I can make this argument without believing that "there is an explanation for the world that is not metaphysical." Would you not agree that that very belief, is itself, metaphysical? I'm waiting on a definition of "metaphysical." But, at first glance, if I knew of and accepted a physical explanation for the origin of the universe, no, I don't think one would necessarily classify that as a "metaphysical" belief. (Once again, I'd like you to define "metaphysical" as you are using it - it has been given different meanings in different contexts).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.