Atheist Fundamentalism

[genkaus]

The regular operation and universal applicability of the physical laws are contingent more fundamental metaphysical principles, like the nature of causation, known only by rational reflection.

Actually, it is known by both rational reflection and observation.
But tell me how the gravitational force contingent upon the nature of causation?

The unmoved mover falls into this category of rationally because it necessarily links the potentials of sensible objects to their actualizations.

As shown by alternatives available in the other thread - not necessarily.

Your statement makes no sense apart from the ability to evaluate what is bad, good, and better, with respect to method.

That is the ability we are talking about - so it does make sense.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...all you can really accomplish is the logical demonstration of the absolutely necessary existence of some metaphysical principle or natural law.

As Schopenhauer pointed out, "The word God, honestly used, expresses such a cause of the world with the addition of personality," ...

Following Plotinus, I disagree with Schopenhauer's statement. God, or the All, may have something analgous to personality, but not personality as such. Personality, like other attributes, would ultimately be contingent on the first metaphysical principle. So I believe, and I think you would agree, that if one accepts the idea of a first metaphysical principle, then knowledge of it by creatures such as ourselves will always be partial and filtered through our limitations. I think we can know of the unmoved mover, but not the unmoved mover directly. Our knowledge seems confined to the intermediate forms that emanate from it.

[Mudhammam]

Following Plotinus, I disagree with Schopenhauer's statement. God, or the All, may have something analgous to personality, but not personality as such. Personality, like other attributes, would ultimately be contingent on the first metaphysical principle. So I believe, and I think you would agree, that if one accepts the idea of a first metaphysical principle, then knowledge of it by creatures such as ourselves will always be partial and filtered through our limitations. I think we can know of the unmoved mover, but not the unmoved mover directly. Our knowledge seems confined to the intermediate forms that emanate from it.

What I accept about a "first metaphysical principle" is that it's as inconceivable as is the point where space ends or as the moment when time had a beginning. Simply because we can speculate, using our often fallacious means of comprehension, and carry logical deductions to extremes that amount to most lofty, general, empty, and poor concepts, in hopes of avoiding apparent conceptual paradoxes, does not give us license to assert the objective existence of a being or material substance that contains within it these features. Such a metaphysical monster is hardly distinguishable from the results we might find in attempting to conjure up pure non-existence in any meaningful sense.

[LastPoet]

atheism fundamentalism = true religion

Q. E-Fucking.D.