Without (or before) humans, and their invention of metaphysics, did reality exist? Plenty of evidence tells me yes.

Will reality continue to exist after humans when there is no longer any metaphysics? Same answer.

@Simon Moon, what I question is whether meeting a “burden of proof” is a useful epistemic obligation for a couple of reasons.

First, I agree with @Belacqua; it’s more of a debate tactic than tool of serious inquiry. If the goal is, as you wrote, to “separate fact from fiction” then reliving critics of a proposition from any obligation to defend their opposition to it. If the goal is to increase understanding, allowing "one side" to be a default position is literally half as effective.

Second, appeal to a “burden of proof” often hides an undisclosed foundationist standard. On AF that means that any theistic proposition must trace back to some foundational principle that is either incorrigible, unmediated or indispensable. At the same time, any theistic proposition is opposed with arguments based on Pyrrhonic skepticism...even though Pyrrhonic skepticism and foundationalism are mutually exclusive.

Now, I will say that warrant is a more lenient standard than justification. However, I only say that because I am not entirely certain that justification is the best most reliable standard for all types of beliefs about all kinds of things. For example, people have different unmediated experiences. While most are common and trivial, on rare occasions some people do have numinous experience that are realer-than-real. As someone who has had enough such mystical experiences that I cannot deny them, I still recognize that they are properly basic to me alone. Justification is a very tough standard for any philosophical stance to meet and very few do. @polymath257 hasn't proven either his nominalism or radical empiricism but expects everyone else to take it for granted.

Finally, I would prefer not to think of atheism and theism as opposing “sides”. Maybe each is working a different side of the same problem.

(January 4, 2022 at 9:37 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:

(January 4, 2022 at 3:15 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: More interestingly, upon what is physical reality contingent?

And is it even logically possible for physical reality to be contingent? Without physical reality we are left with...?

When the theist argues that the universe, or physical reality, must be contingent, they are not necessarily implying that non-existence is possible. They can grant that existence is metaphysically necessary, while also arguing that it need not be in this actual form that it is in.

If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that this reality only comprises one universe (with us in it), then would you agree that there could have instead be a reality in which we didn't exist at all? If so, then it seems to me like this would be a concession that this physical reality is contingent. If not, then you're arguing that it is metaphysically necessary and couldn't have been otherwise (but this would be a really hard argument to make for this scenario, at first glance).

For the atheist, there appear to be primarily two options to go with in response to whether a one-universe reality is contingent or not:

1. Such a reality is necessary because there's no way it could've been otherwise. This seems to suffer from the same problem as when the theist argues that this world is the best of all possible worlds. It's hard to see how it could not have been otherwise.

2. Such a reality is not necessary as is, but it exists as is nevertheless. And there need not be an explanation for that. The universe is a brute fact.

If we start postulating multiple universes per physical reality, it gets intuitively easier to see how reality must therefore be necessary. And it's even easier when we consider all possible universes being actual universes within this reality. So if the first two options listed above aren't appealing to the atheist, this is basically the third option.

About your statement on intuition, I think I have a less cynical view of it. Intuition, when it is coupled with good reasoning and given what we do know and observe, can be a good pointer in the right direction. But yeah, you definitely do not want to rely primarily on intuition for certainty.

And for me, no, my intuition doesn't tell me the earth is flat. I've seen the pictures and videos after all (and the science clearly shows it is not flat). Intuition itself can evolve with new understanding. Intuition also isn't the complete opposite of reasoning; they are often in tandem with one another when it comes to pondering/analyzing reality. Intuition is automatic and doesn't involve much rigor per se, but it doesn't mean reasoning cannot make use of intuition at all.

I don't think that anybody is arguing that any of the many various possible realities are necessary. The debate is whether physical reality itself and in total is contingent. You'd have to do a lot of digging to find a theist that argues that this particular physical reality was capital "C" Created but another physical reality where the grains of sand on the beach lay a slightly different way required no Divine Intervention whatsoever. The theistic argument is that God created All and thus every physical reality is contingent upon God.

The crux of that is trying to determine what physical reality could possibly be contingent upon. When you deduct all of physical reality you're left with sweet bugger all at a level that defies comprehension and a baseless assertion that a necessary Somebody "exists" eternally "outside" of that to Create everything.

(January 4, 2022 at 11:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(January 4, 2022 at 9:37 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: When the theist argues that the universe, or physical reality, must be contingent, they are not necessarily implying that non-existence is possible. They can grant that existence is metaphysically necessary, while also arguing that it need not be in this actual form that it is in.

If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that this reality only comprises one universe (with us in it), then would you agree that there could have instead be a reality in which we didn't exist at all? If so, then it seems to me like this would be a concession that this physical reality is contingent. If not, then you're arguing that it is metaphysically necessary and couldn't have been otherwise (but this would be a really hard argument to make for this scenario, at first glance).

For the atheist, there appear to be primarily two options to go with in response to whether a one-universe reality is contingent or not:

1. Such a reality is necessary because there's no way it could've been otherwise. This seems to suffer from the same problem as when the theist argues that this world is the best of all possible worlds. It's hard to see how it could not have been otherwise.

2. Such a reality is not necessary as is, but it exists as is nevertheless. And there need not be an explanation for that. The universe is a brute fact.

If we start postulating multiple universes per physical reality, it gets intuitively easier to see how reality must therefore be necessary. And it's even easier when we consider all possible universes being actual universes within this reality. So if the first two options listed above aren't appealing to the atheist, this is basically the third option.

About your statement on intuition, I think I have a less cynical view of it. Intuition, when it is coupled with good reasoning and given what we do know and observe, can be a good pointer in the right direction. But yeah, you definitely do not want to rely primarily on intuition for certainty.

And for me, no, my intuition doesn't tell me the earth is flat. I've seen the pictures and videos after all (and the science clearly shows it is not flat). Intuition itself can evolve with new understanding. Intuition also isn't the complete opposite of reasoning; they are often in tandem with one another when it comes to pondering/analyzing reality. Intuition is automatic and doesn't involve much rigor per se, but it doesn't mean reasoning cannot make use of intuition at all.

I don't think that anybody is arguing that any of the many various possible realities are necessary. The debate is whether physical reality itself and in total is contingent. You'd have to do a lot of digging to find a theist that argues that this particular physical reality was capital "C" Created but another physical reality where the grains of sand on the beach lay a slightly different way required no Divine Intervention whatsoever. The theistic argument is that God created All and thus every physical reality is contingent upon God.

The crux of that is trying to determine what physical reality could possibly be contingent upon. When you deduct all of physical reality you're left with sweet bugger all at a level that defies comprehension and a baseless assertion that a necessary Somebody "exists" eternally "outside" of that

If this physical reality could have been some other different physical reality instead, then it's going to be hard to argue that nevertheless such physical reality would be necessary. It would be a brute fact in such a case (for many atheists), but not metaphysically necessary. But a brute fact at least will also not require any external explanation, so the atheist has that in their favor anyway.

Necessary vs. contingent should only matter to you if the PSR matters to you.

(January 4, 2022 at 10:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: @Simon Moon, what I question is whether meeting a “burden of proof” is a useful epistemic obligation for a couple of reasons.

Unsurprisingly, this is a position favoured by those who have no epistemological foundation.

Quote:First, I agree with @Belacqua; it’s more of a debate tactic than tool of serious inquiry. If the goal is, as you wrote, to “separate fact from fiction” then reliving critics of a proposition from any obligation to defend their opposition to it. If the goal is to increase understanding, allowing "one side" to be a default position is literally half as effective.

How then would you even attempt to formulate any epistemology at all? If the claimant does not bear the basic burden of proof to substantiate their claim then we must spend from now until the universe grows cold examining every flight of fancy, idiocy, and lunacy to pick the smallest iota of pepper out of an ocean of fly shit.

The burden of proof is not an unequal, one-sided handicap, as any successful philosopher or debater can easily demonstrate. It's a minimum bar for the evaluation of any proposition that amounts to "OK, show me the goods." If you can't meet that very low standard you ought to question whether you actually have any goods to show.

---

(January 4, 2022 at 11:57 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: If this physical reality could have been some other different physical reality instead, then it's going to be hard to argue that nevertheless such physical reality would be necessary. It would be a brute fact in such a case (for many atheists), but not metaphysically necessary. But a brute fact at least will also not require any external explanation, so the atheist has that in their favor anyway.

I'm not suggesting that this particular physical reality is necessary. I'm arguing that some arbitrary physical reality is necessary. That we exist to debate this one demonstrates only that we are well-evolved to these conditions.

Quote:what I question is whether meeting a “burden of proof” is a useful epistemic obligation for a couple of reasons.

It is and only people who would object are people who have an agenda to spew unfounded nonsense.

Quote:First, I agree with @Belacqua; it’s more of a debate tactic than tool of serious inquiry. If the goal is, as you wrote, to “separate fact from fiction” then reliving critics of a proposition from any obligation to defend their opposition to it. If the goal is to increase understanding, allowing "one side" to be a default position is literally half as effective.

People who make positive claims have to prove them. No one else has that obligation and only people who have nothing to back up their positions would object.


Ultimately you and Bel just want to give a blank check to quacks spewing baseless crap 

I've enjoyed reading this thread.  It lays useful guidelines for rational thought while showing people in exercise of irrational thought as they pursuit alternatives.  

Plus, it has a groovy beat and is great for dancing.  I give it a 95.

(January 5, 2022 at 12:01 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

---

(January 4, 2022 at 11:57 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: If this physical reality could have been some other different physical reality instead, then it's going to be hard to argue that nevertheless such physical reality would be necessary. It would be a brute fact in such a case (for many atheists), but not metaphysically necessary. But a brute fact at least will also not require any external explanation, so the atheist has that in their favor anyway.

I'm not suggesting that this particular physical reality is necessary. I'm arguing that some arbitrary physical reality is necessary. That we exist to debate this one demonstrates only that we are well-evolved to these conditions.

I get what you're saying, but I don't get the reasoning behind why it's enough to say that existence is necessary, when the theist is saying that this particular reality is contingent and therefore requires an explanation (because it could've been something else instead)? I'm not sure how saying "well, non-existence is impossible, so we can only have what we do have" sufficiently counters that. Shouldn't a proper response also involve having to argue for this particular reality not being contingent?

We can allow reality to be contingent on initial conditions and whatever forcings without inserting a cosmic gamemaster as an explanation for the system.  Pondering the nature of a cosmic gamemaster can make for entertaining stories but it does nothing toward measuring and understanding the reality we face.  Allowing such a distracting makes us irrational.

(January 4, 2022 at 10:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: [...] For example, people have different unmediated experiences. While most are common and trivial, on rare occasions some people do have numinous experience that are realer-than-real. As someone who has had enough such mystical experiences that I cannot deny them, I still recognize that they are properly basic to me alone. [...]

Just out of curiosity Neo, and if you're willing to talk about it, what sort of mystical experiences have you had? I ask because aside from the philosophical bent towards Aquinas etc, I don't have much of an idea of what sort of a Christian you are, and am curious.

Basically to each their own I think, in how we interpret our own mental events... that's our own private affair... interpreted as spiritual or otherwise... otherwise for me, spiritual for you... and there can even be overlap, such as the Buddhist meditation I'm interested in, which they would refer to as spiritual but I would not, because I have no concept of spiritual in my worldview and it's just as meaningful to me without that label. So just saying really that though I could likely never find other people's claims of spiritual/supernatural experiences convincing, mainly on account of seeing all mental phenomena as exactly that and only that, mental phenomena... doesn't mean I don't respect that those experiences, whatever they turn out to be, spiritual or otherwise, are real and deeply meaningful to them. Like NDEs for instance, I have no doubt they occur, and are deeply meaningful for those who have them, but to convince me that they are actual genuine divine experiences, rather than say the effects of cultural conditioning combined with a dying brain, would be a different matter.

Granted I accept that if I were to have a genuine mystical experience, if such a thing exists, I probably would not recognise it as such on account of this thinking... throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, if that's the right analogy... or at the very least it would have to be an incredibly powerful experience for me to consider that possibility, not just something easily attributable to bias like the pattern completion of seeing 'signs' when you're already primed to think about them... ie to use a common example, it's not amazing to me to see Jesus in a piece of toast, or any other similar 'vision', when I've already been thinking about Christianity or whatever other subject beforehand. Nor would I consider something a possible answer to prayer unless the prayer was very specific, and had proper failure standards, same thing goes for prophecies; ie as opposed to vague, open ended prayers/prophecies where that vagueness means, like horoscopes, it can be made to fit multiple interpretations, and the open-endedness changes the possible answers from yes and no to yes and not yet. I'm curious how you think about signs, prayer, and prophecy... whether you see the same issues I do (eg about bias, vagueness, openendedness etc) or whether you think about about them some other way, or something else?

As to my actual experiences of the potentially mystical/spiritual, tbh I don't think I've had anything that would fit that description even when I was a Christian (ie up to the age of 18). I used to believe in the power of prayer in that vague and open-ended sense I mentioned, but not any more obviously. One experience I had growing up was of 'carpet time' when some preacher from America came to visit our church (I think)... basically he'd come in, lay his hands on people and they'd just fall backwards into the arms of people behind them, and then end up a mass of people all lying on the floor giggling, supposedly filled with the holy spirit. When it came my turn I just remember my general mental state of a combination of lack of trust (to fall back... never been great at those sorts of trust exercises), combined with expectation/desire and peer pressure... basically it didn't happen... the best I felt was possibly a little weak at the knees, and with a sense that I could play along/force myself to fall but it was nothing more than that. Looking back on it, I just think of it in terms of something like stage hypnosis and how that relies on people being suggestible in a certain way, which the hypnotist would test for, and basically wouldn't work with someone as uptight as me; my own mental rigidness sometimes prevents going with the flow. As for meditation, I'm not great at it and don't expect to be (I'm not an actual Buddhist, I just find aspects of it inspiring)... I've found it useful and had some vaguely interesting/unusual perceptions, mainly related to the passage of time during it, but nothing I would think of as otherworldly.