No one claims your mom is omnipotent and omnipresent you eggplant. And if they did, you’d think nothing of such a ridiculous claim. Which is what a rational person would do.
So anything bad that ever happens to you is your own fault?
Do you just walk around through life assuming cancer patients did something awful to deserve their disease? Cause that’s the only way this analogy makes any sense…
Everyone dies saban. Are you saying that if everyone doesn’t die peacefully in their sleep, and unless no one ever gets bruised or cut or hurt or harmed in any way, it means there is no god?
Now you’re just trying to pivot without having admitted that your analogy only makes sense if you assume everyone who gets cancer must have done something to deserve getting it.
Empiricism, as an epistemological view, argues that knowledge is based on experience and that it is tentative and probabilistic, subject to revision and falsification.
Metaphysics, on the other hand, traditionally explores mind-independent features of the world, including the nature of existence, the features all entities have in common, and their division into categories of being.
It’s so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it’s like, religion, you really can’t take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary…but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn’t believe in anything anymore if it weren’t for my lucky astrology mood watch.
Steve Martin
That just to try and get you into a better headspace? Levity, anyone?
Due to the abstract nature of its topic, metaphysics has received criticisms questioning the reliability of its methods and the meaningfulness of its theories.
The problem is that metaphysics isn’t even meaningful.
You obviously can’t say the same for science. Because science is the reason we can write together.
Metaphysics boils down to Descartes: “I think therefore I am”, and that’s it, it never got any further!!
The why question is a nonsense question. For science it’s obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don’t have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.
Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?
You’re pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?
If you want to make your case, be sure you don’t get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.
I don’t know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.
I make my room filthy and dangerous every day. My roommates are getting hurt!
Why doesn’t my mom clean it up for me? She certainly could. Does she want me to live in squalor? Perhaps she MAKES the mess!
IDK, maybe mom doesn’t exist.
No one claims your mom is omnipotent and omnipresent you eggplant. And if they did, you’d think nothing of such a ridiculous claim. Which is what a rational person would do.
I understand you think I’m a member of the nightshade family. Cool.
I’ll take Pascal’s wager and believe you’re an eggplant hooked up to a computer, just promise me a good time when I die.
Your mother, the allpowerful being.
It’s an analogy.
It’s a meme
Less anal, more logos next time.
Does your mom…
Put eye parasites that blind children in your room?
Force you to eat and breathe through the same tube?
Give you horrible cancers?
Put drugs in your room and then get mad when you use them?
Tell you to love her unconditionally after doing all of these things?
So anything bad that ever happens to you is your own fault?
Do you just walk around through life assuming cancer patients did something awful to deserve their disease? Cause that’s the only way this analogy makes any sense…
Everyone dies saban. Are you saying that if everyone doesn’t die peacefully in their sleep, and unless no one ever gets bruised or cut or hurt or harmed in any way, it means there is no god?
Now you’re just trying to pivot without having admitted that your analogy only makes sense if you assume everyone who gets cancer must have done something to deserve getting it.
"
sabin FTFY.
But true statement based on empirical evidence.
Also true statement based on empirical evidence.
Why can you understand one, but not the other?
Empiricism, as an epistemological view, argues that knowledge is based on experience and that it is tentative and probabilistic, subject to revision and falsification.
Metaphysics, on the other hand, traditionally explores mind-independent features of the world, including the nature of existence, the features all entities have in common, and their division into categories of being.
That just to try and get you into a better headspace? Levity, anyone?
Also from Wikipedia on metaphysics:
The problem is that metaphysics isn’t even meaningful.
You obviously can’t say the same for science. Because science is the reason we can write together.
Metaphysics boils down to Descartes: “I think therefore I am”, and that’s it, it never got any further!!
And what’s the point of quoting a joke?
Metaphysics addresses “why”. Like, “why are we doing science anyway?”
Can’t answer that with the scientific method.
The why question is a nonsense question. For science it’s obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don’t have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.
Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?
You’re pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?
If you want to make your case, be sure you don’t get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.
I don’t know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.