No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

That's right. I just said that. I understand it. 

A Prime Mover is a Prime Mover, and if a Christian wants to argue for more attributes, he needs to make separate arguments.

Why do I have to say things twice?


I don't have one, particularly. I am working on several different ones. 

Then there is the apophatic idea of God, which makes the lack of our ability to define God something important in our understanding. That's an interesting train of thought. 

I'm not avoiding anything, and I'm not lying. And it's not fair of you to accuse me. 

You don't like my answers, that's all. 

You said very clearly that only science-type evidence is evidence. If that's what you think, that's your metaphysical commitment. 

I'm perfectly happy to say "I don't know" about a lot of these questions. Unlike you, I haven't yet mastered each and every argument and shown where it is unsound. 

Also please note that you have left two of my questions unanswered. If you're going to accuse me of avoiding things, you shouldn't also do the same.

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetPos

Sounds like it all might just be mental masturbation and in the end amount to nothing.

That's right. I think every student of metaphysics knows that much of it will never be proved.

Why does that make it not worth our time?

Are you such a Puritan that you hate masturbation?