I’m still in a rather argumentive state of being. I don’t like being told by email that I’m unlearned and incapable of understanding what should be, according to the sender, a plain understandable explanation proving that metaphysics can be used to prove the existence of God. I say it doesn’t.
Just because I am as ignorant concerning metaphysics, quantum “physics” and so on as a highschool dropout, does not mean that I am incapable of discussing the subject. But some good has come of all this. I now know I must know why I believe metaphysics to be worthless when it comes to proving the existence of “God”.
How do you take this dictionary description . . . A metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world, or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifable . . . —and change it to read otherwise?
I may not have chosen the best analology—the title—to compare what I’ve learned so far about metaphysics and God, but when I come across such as this: “More recently, the term “metaphysics” has also been employed by non-philosphers to refer to “subjects that are beyond the physical world”, then I’m given good reason to question the use of metaphysics in connection with God. Seems to me if the “more recent” philosphers can add meaning to metaphysics and quantum theory, and make of them something entirely different than what they are, something is wrong somewhere. . . . 5/14. Selma, I realize this “negates” your comment somewhat but the original thought I had, was not what I intended. Sorry about that. . . .
Of course you should be able to. Metaphysics can be so complicated it can tie itself in knots very quickly. I think it’s how scientists define things they have trouble defining. As I mentioned before, most of these physics types are very unforgiving. They might be ‘learned’ but not necessarily wise.
Thanks, Selma. I’ve no quarrel with the concept of God, and I’d be more than willing to never talk or write about the subject if only other people felt the same way. Nevertheless, I have to be honest: I really love a good “back and forth”. So far, I’ve held my own every time.
i honestly believe that some people just need a godhead or an intelligent universe or what ever so desperately that they create on in which they find themselves… for those of us that rely more on our own ability to reason and make intelligent decisions,, such a crutch is not a necessity,, and thus seems ever so ludicrus…..
Paisley, how can any writer who honestly believes in God, not put his or her convictions in print and send them on in the hope of converting others? It’s the normal thing to do. However, it should, and can be done in such a way as not to suggest a lack of intelligence on the part of the disbeliever for failing to be “converted”.
O. K., I’ve been the “devil’s advocate for the believer. Now, as an atheist, I write what I believe and sometimes what I write is in direct opposition to the believer. When I write, I try to stay with facts and I hope I never get “personal”.
It’s give and take—or should be. All too often, the debate ends with one party or the other using insults in place of facts to prove a point, and nothing is gained in the exchange.