Metaphysical proof

[Mr.Badham]

Is there something that isn't metaphysically possible?

Metaphysically speaking, couldn't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, don't all possible gods exist?

Metaphysically speaking, all gods are believable.

Right?

Can any of this be proven incorrect?

[JP Cusick]

Therefore the only metaphysical philosophies that cannot be disproved are those that avoid making very specific contradictory statements about their God. This ultimately leaves their "God" ill-defined, or totally undefined. In which case it's actually impossible to say that such a God exists, since its existence would change nothing that wouldn't already be true in a purely secular world anyway.

You are hereby ignoring (Ignomus) the OP and my response to the OP, that there are many different Gods, and so one God contradicting other Gods is to be expected.

I say you simply need to deprogram your own orthodox Christianity brainwashing because your positions are based on the orthodox Christianity and are not based on inquisitive science.

Each God has its own individuality and personality and they do not just conflict with each other but they even make wars with each other.

That the characteristics of each God or of the Father God is ill-defined or undefined is our human challenge and our quest to decipher the truth, and this adventure is what makes each discovery so much fun and rewarding.

[jgh7]

I've always had a vague definition of what metaphysics means. Could someone give a laymen's definition for what "metaphysically possible" means and how it differs in any way from regular possible.

[JP Cusick]

I've always had a vague definition of what metaphysics means. Could someone give a laymen's definition for what "metaphysically possible" means and how it differs in any way from regular possible.

I agree that there is no clear definition, and in my online searches there was very little info regarding any realistic definition.

The best that I find is in the prefix of "meta" from Wikipedia: Meta is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

As such "meta-physical" means some abstraction of the physical = a non physical concept of the physical world.

In my own view the terminology of "metaphysical" is just based on insults and prejudice - and that view aligns with the words used in the OP.

"As soon as one begins to divide things up, there are names;
Once there are names, one should also know when to stop;
Knowing when to stop, one thereby avoids peril." Tao #32, Victor Mair

[Elijah John]

So your demand that we must prove anything to you is just nonsense - it does not work that way.

It absolutely does work that way. After all you are the one who is making a CLAIM:

The one absolute truth is that God is real, God is reality, and God rules.

That's a claim, and you are the one who has made it. Therefore the burden of proof that the claim is true is entirely on your shoulders and it's not a burden for anyone else to disprove it just because you made a claim that has no evidence, or even a meaningful definition for the concept you claim exists.

I am making a declaration to anyone interested and that is not the same as a CLAIM.

What you are asking is egotistical as if you are the high Judge and the jury over me which you are not.

If you can not comprehend the discussion then you need to step out instead expecting me to explain it to your unreasonable and rebellious satisfaction - because I am not playing that egotistical game.

As already said = each person must do their own homework, and you keep asking me to do your homework by proving it to you.

As again already said = I can not prove to anyone that the sky is blue or that the grass is green, and so you asking for proof is based on your refusal or your failure to go look for thy self = do thy own homework.

If I demand that you prove to me that the sky is blue and the grass is green = then you can not prove that to me - and I would be a fool to claim ignorance of it.

I have already proven the existence and activity of God to my own satisfaction - because I did my homework.

And again I quote what has already been said = That is why the Ignostics demand that people must prove anything to them with clear definition and easy to comprehend - because they can not think or decide for their self = thereby they are an ignoramus.

You are claiming (you CLAIM) ignorance as your excuse - and no one can really cure the ignorance except thy self.

For the concept of metaphysics you get an "F" as in you failed metaphysics.

Moderator Comment

JP your tone here is uncivil...at best. Please tone it down and focus on argument and counter-argument only.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

I've always had a vague definition of what metaphysics means. Could someone give a laymen's definition for what "metaphysically possible" means and how it differs in any way from regular possible.

I can't speak for the author of the OP, however I can give you my personal take on the meaning of "metaphysically possible".

The term "meta-physical" is a combination of two root terms and means "beyond-physical". So a metaphysical philosophy is simply any philosophy that proposes ideas that go beyond physics.

For example, we can speculate that the physical world itself is just a dream. And illusion created by a non-physical mind. That would be a metaphysical philosophical paradigm.

Can we prove that such a speculative philosophy is false? No, not really. But at the same time we can't prove that it's true either. So it's a guess that cannot be proven to be true or false.

The philosophers who propose metaphysical philosophies rely upon the fact that these philosophies cannot be disprove to assert that since they cannot be disproved we cannot rule them out as being impossible.

Buddhism is based on this type of metaphysical philosophy. Buddhism goes into much greater depth proclaiming all manner of details about how this dream of life proceeds and why it is the way it is. And because the Buddhist are very careful to not include any logical contradictions in their philosophy their philosophy cannot be proven to be false. Therefore they can always argue that if it can't be proven to be false, then it must be kept on the table as being possibly true.

Other metaphysical philosophy that attempt to describe a creator of the universe are also metaphysical. However, they also contain blatant logical contradictions. So in order for those metaphysical philosophies to be true, logic itself must be wrong. But since philosophy itself depends upon logical arguments this approach fails. So metaphysical philosophies that contain extreme logical contradictions (such as the Abrahamic fables of God, for example) fail even as metaphysical philosophies.

~~~~~~~

As another more physical example, consider the following.

It was once believed that our universe is eternal and fundamentally "static" in terms of its overall size and composition. At first this philosophy was not only accepted, but totally believed by most everyone including scientists up until the 20th century.

However upon observation of the actual physical universe, it was discovered that the universe is actually expanding and that entropy demands a heat death of the universe at some point in the future. Therefore this metaphysical philosophy of a static universe that is unchanging in any major ways was proven to be inapplicable to our actual universe. In this way scientists have shown the true nature of our actual universe without necessarily disproving the original metaphysical philosophy.

In other words, one could still argue that from a purely philosophical perspective we can still imagine an eternal static universe that doesn't contradict any known logic. It simply would no longer apply to our specific universe.

Of course, there are additional problems for such metaphysical philosophies. For example, an eternal static universe could not have physics driven by entropy either. So the metaphysical philosophers would need to deal with that as well.

But the point is that if a metaphysical philosophy cannot be shown to be logically self-contradictory there is no way to disprove it.

So logical consistency is a major factor in whether a metaphysical philosophy can even be said to be potentially viable at all. But even so, a metaphysical philosophy that does not contain any major contradictions (such as Buddhism) can still not be claimed to exist since it can neither be proved nor disproved. Although there are some people such as Sean Carroll who believe that many of the assertions of Buddhism can indeed be proved false.

Proving the Abrahamic fables (which have become a metaphysical philosophy for many theists) to be false is actually quite easy. Although the theists who support it refuse to acknowledge this.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to liamconnor]

I'm not sure why you think contradiction cannot occur in a metaphysics.

[Mr.Badham]

Metaphysically speaking, all gods are believable.

Right?

Wrong.

Can any of this be proven incorrect?

I think this can ultimately depend on what a person accepts as proof. Obviously we have formal system of logic. But even our formal logic is just a system of reasoning that can only be applied after unprovable premises have been accepted as "self-evident truths" upon which to apply the formal logical reasoning.

People, including mathematicians, philosophers, and even logicians themselves often argue over the validity of what we accept as "self-evident truths" (or premises) upon which to begin our logical system of argument.

Most people are unaware that all human reasoning (i.e. all logic) necessarily begin with, and relies upon the acceptance of at least some primal unprovable premises, that can only be argued are "self-evident" but cannot be proven to be so.

Mathematicians have even shown examples of this with the various types of geometries as a prime example. What we decide to accept as a primal premise can change the outcome of what is logically reasonable. For example, in Flat, or Euclidean Geometry the sum of the angles of all triangles necessarily add up to 360 degrees, or 2 Pi radians. And pi itself is always a constant.

However, if we change an unprovable premise we can create two other logically consistent geometric models: Spherical Geometry, and Hyperbolic Geometry. In these Geometries the sum of the angles of a triangle is not a constant, and neither is the value of Pi.

Insofar as we are aware, all three of these geometries may be physically possible since the required premises may all be possible under various conditions within our physical universe. None the less, these three "logical formal geometries" yield different answers depending on what premise is in play.

There are many other examples in logic as well. So logic itself is not as iron-clad as many people have come to believe.

None the less, once we have defined a mathematical system with some rigor, we can then demand a very specific logical answer to a given question. For example having defined what we mean by rational and irrational numbers, we can prove via logic that there cannot be a rational solution to the operation of the square root of 2. That can be proven based on the definitions of rational and irrational numbers.

~~~~~~

Now all of the above might seem highly mathematical, but if you follow the reasoning above you can see that what make logical sense and can be proven or disproved using logic, can often depend upon definitions, premises, and the rigor of the system under consideration.

~~~~~~

I'll have to take your word for that stuff, but my belief is that math is metaphysical. It doesn't exist except in our minds. Like words. Not real, just representative. That's why you can say crazy things like; "My God has eternal love and also punishes you eternally if you don't believe in him". It's completely contradictory, but somehow believable.

So the fact that you could have two different, yet correct answers in math doesn't really surprise me. Math doesn't exist.... physically.


On a side note, I'm just curious as to how different those numbers would be. Like for example, if you were using the different geometries on a globe, would one answer land you in LA, while the other would land you in NY, or are the answers so close that the only difference would be noticeable with a microscope.

[Mr.Badham]

I've always had a vague definition of what metaphysics means. Could someone give a laymen's definition for what "metaphysically possible" means and how it differs in any way from regular possible.

My feeling is that it's anything that isn't regular possible.

[Divine Insight]

I'll have to take your word for that stuff, but my belief is that math is metaphysical. It doesn't exist except in our minds. Like words. Not real, just representative.

Yes and no. Yes it can be metaphysical in the sense that it can represent something metaphysical. Just as we use words to represent things that don't actually exist such as the boogieman.

However, we can also use words to describe things that actually do exist, and in a similar way mathematics can be used to describe things that actually do exist.

When it comes to mathematical formalism there are two questions we can ask.

1. Does the mathematics actually represent our physical universe?

And

2. Is the formalism logically sound (i.e. contains no contradictions).

Mathematicians are more interested in the second question. If a mathematical formalism is logically consistent they consider it to be 'valid' whether it represents physical reality or not.

So the fact that you could have two different, yet correct answers in math doesn't really surprise me. Math doesn't exist.... physically.

Keep in mind though that these answered are only considered to be "correct" if no logical contradictions can be shown to exist. Mathematicians don't care whether or not the situation being described can actually exist in the physical world.

On a side note, I'm just curious as to how different those numbers would be. Like for example, if you were using the different geometries on a globe, would one answer land you in LA, while the other would land you in NY, or are the answers so close that the only difference would be noticeable with a microscope.

Yes the answered can indeed be vastly different with one landing you in LA and the other landing you in NY.

However, you need to remember that these two different answers are based upon different geometries. Therefore only ONE of those answers are going to be valid in the physical universe. The other answer would only be valid in a universe that has a different geometry.

Or, to put this another way: If you were to change the geometry of our actual universe then the second answer would become true. And this is why mathematicians view this as a "valid" answer. Solely because it is logically sound, NOT because it actually reflects the current geometry of our actual universe.

Also, it might be informative to understand that these other geometries might actually be possible in certain places within our actual universe. In other words, here on earth we are experiencing "Flat" or "Euclidean" Geometry. Therefore only that geometry will give the "correct" answer for the current location of the earth.

However, if you were to move the earth into a place in our universe where the spacetime is extremely curved (like say inside a black hole), then a different geometry would apply. In other words, the actual spatial separation between LA and NY would physical change and therefore the answer would change.

So it can be argued that these alternative geometries are not only logically valid, but they can also be valid within some regions of the actual universe thus making them more than just abstract ideas.

However, to then conclude that every logically valid proposition must then be true at some place within the real world doesn't follow. But it does imply that if something cannot be shown to be logically contradictory it may possibly exist.

But if we apply this to some religious mythological tales we see that they aren't even logically consistent. So we can rule those out as being impossible in all cases. And because of this we can rule out some "metaphysical paradigms" as being clearly false.

In other words, there are metaphysical philosophies that can be proven to be false. And the Biblical metaphysical philosophy is certainly one of them.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

So, let me get this straight, you're using math that is only correct when used on the "Event Horizon" of Black hole, and you're saying that it only applies to earth if it were to suddenly appear there.

Or, to put this another way: If you were to change the geometry of our actual universe then the second answer would become true. And this is why mathematicians view this as a "valid" answer. Solely because it is logically sound, NOT because it actually reflects the current geometry of our actual universe.

Okay, but I haven't changed the geometry of the universe.

You can't just change the geometry of the universe

The geometry of the universe has not changed

Is that not the definition of "Metaphysics?"

"In a universe where virgin birth is possible....."
"In a universe where walking on water is possible..."
"In a universe where your planet now exists on the Event Horizon of a black hole..."

That math is not fallible, it is speculative. It is worthless. Shame on you for mentioning it.

I think less of you now.