NerblyBear wrote:

galanter wrote:Metaphysics meaning...

met‧a‧phys‧ics  /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fiz-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

You consider all of this as nonsense?

Medieval philosophy was dominated by what was called 'metaphysics' in the Aristotelian sense for about six centuries until Immanuel Kant came in and brought down that house of cards. According to Kant, and to many post-Kantian philosophers, answers to questions about the origins of space and time are impossible--from an ontological point of view, it should be stressed, however, and not from the point of view of a scientist hypothesizing about the Big Bang. If you'd like me to explain to you why Kant thought this was the case, I will, but I presume that you probably already know.

That stuff is not "nonsense". It was conceived by geniuses and it's amazingly detailed and well-thought-out. It's just not true.

I was simply pointing out to Steve that by metaphysics I didn't mean astrology, pyramid power, and crystals, I meant the consideration of being, cosmology, and so on.

DrAwkward wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Again you avoid the point. Why is this notion of a creator god you claim is possible of higher value than other gods. Zeus was regarded as the creator god at the time and Greek mythology is know regarded as literature... why is Yahweh any different?

Exactly. Galanter, you state that the Christian definition of "God" contains so much metaphysical meaning regarding the nature of the universe itself that God should be put on a higher pedestal than Zeus or Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but i'm sure if one were to study Norse or Greek mythology, there would be plenty of metaphysical theory in those stories as well. Hell, just glancing at the Norse Mythology overview on Wikipedia there's immediate talk of duality as the nature of the universe, and whatnot.

I think you need to take a semantic step back, Galanter. When you say "God" are you referring to the Christian representation of God or just some otherworldly force, be it God, Brahman, Nirvana, etc? Apologies if you've clarified this earlier in the thread; you could imagine that's gotten lost pretty easily in 20-some pages.

newberry wrote:

I was simply pointing out to Steve that by metaphysics I didn't mean astrology, pyramid power, and crystals, I meant the consideration of being, cosmology, and so on.

Could you please explain the difference? How is the metaphysics of pyramid power different from the metaphysics of "being" or cosmology?

galanter wrote:

newberry wrote:

I was simply pointing out to Steve that by metaphysics I didn't mean astrology, pyramid power, and crystals, I meant the consideration of being, cosmology, and so on.

Could you please explain the difference? How is the metaphysics of pyramid power different from the metaphysics of "being" or cosmology?

Don't make this more complicated than it is. The word "metaphysics" has multiple meanings. I think Steve was saying "why should I even think about ghosts and goblins?", and I replied "I'm not talking about ghosts and goblins, I'm talking about ontology and cosmology...the *other* meaning of metaphysics."

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:
I find this massively egotistical...

And your claim to have absolute certainty about the ultimate metaphysical nature of all reality is what? Circumspect and modest?

Certainly not, but neither do i make supernatural claims based on Iron Age beliefs.

I have no answers, but God is not in the gaps.

So you say. But you also say you have no answers.

C'mon...call yourself an agnostic already. It's almost defined as "I have no answers".

In terms that we can never know anything as an absolute certainly, that would make me "agnostic", however this isn't what you seem to be pushing for. It seems that you are expecting me to be an agnostic about a specific god, Yahweh, the god of Christians, Muslims and Jews.

I have no different in opinion of this particular god or Zeus or the flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.

Can you give a reason why I should?

The difference is that claims about the flying spaghetti monster are claims about this or that object. It's a limited claim about a limited fact. Claims about God existing or not are claims about the ultimate structure of all reality. To claim the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist is to make a small claim with little further impact. To claim God doesn't exist is to make a claim to have certainty about the nature of all reality. It's a huge claim that impacts everything.

To me an atheist is an agnostic who hasn't realized yet they are over-reaching.

What I tend to say is "I don't see how I can know if God exists or not. It *feels* like he doesn't...I live my life like he doesn't...but I can't claim I *know* he doesn't."

I just don't feel competent to claim certainty about the nature of all reality.

How can you?

galanter wrote:That's one opinion.

How can you be sure?

I'm saying that ultimately you can't be.

So join the agnostic team with me.

newberry wrote:
I don't mean to make this more complicated, but I am interested in understanding your view. If the metaphysics of cosmology is different from the metaphysics of pyramid power, I'm curious to hear what that difference is.

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:That's one opinion.

How can you be sure?

I'm saying that ultimately you can't be.

So join the agnostic team with me.

Are you an agnostic about Zeus or just Jahweh?