No reason justifies disbelief.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure yet. They pose a lot of interesting questions. They point out, among other things, how many questions there are that science can't answer, and maybe can't be answered at all.

How have you determined which questions science can’t answer?  You have a crystal ball on hand?

I'd say that the agnostic atheist position of reserved doubt works here as well: "I reserve the right to change my mind if presented with good evidence, but so far there's no evidence that science can answer this type of question."

None of science's successes in understanding features IN and OF the framework of the Universe lead logically to the idea that science can answer questions which transcend it-- for example, why such a framework exists at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a bit of a misconception.  It's not that science -couldn't- answer those questions...presumably, science engaged in from outside the boundaries of our circumstance could.  It isn't a limit of empirical investigation, but a limit of our specific position, that creates this impasse..so far as we can tell.

Agnostic atheism, as a position, has nothing to do with a position of reserved doubt (or acceptance) of what science can or can't answer...or even of what questions can and can't be answered by any means. It;s just a statement of ones personal status.

"I don't believe, and I don't know."

[LadyForCamus]

How have you determined which questions science can’t answer?  You have a crystal ball on hand?

—why such a framework exists at all.

Maybe that’s an inherently faulty question to even be asking.

[bennyboy]

That's a bit of a misconception.  It's not that science -couldn't- answer those questions...presumably, science engaged in from outside the boundaries of our circumstance could.  It isn't a limit of empirical investigation, but a limit of our specific position, that creates this impasse..so far as we can tell.

It could be that if we somehow found a way to tunnel out of this Universe, we might discover a new meta-framework (NMF), and say, "Well, when X happens in NMF, then a Universe is created, and if Y and Z are true, it will be a Universe much like ours."

But infinite regress.  "Why does NMF exist rather than not?"  It's still the same question, and with no reason to believe that the next turtle, or billion turtles, will ever lead us to the answer.

And there's no evidence, pretty much by definition, that we could ever break free from the bounds of this Universe.  At best, we can make a faith-based statement: "We haven't done it YET, but it's still the best tool for answering questions about reality."

[The Grand Nudger]

Science doesn't discover meta anything.  Metaphysics is meant to be different than empirical whatsits.  If anything is empirical, it's just physics.  If we are not capable of making knowledge statements without reference -to- the empirical..to "discovery" then we have no valid conception of a meta anything..again, it's just physics.

Infinite regress is not a problem for physics, it's a problem for a system of generating answers that relies on a terminus that may not exist, an issue for an empty set.

[bennyboy]

—why such a framework exists at all.

Maybe that’s an inherently faulty question to even be asking.

Sure.  You can say something like "You can't ask what caused the Big Bang, because causality is time-dependent, and the math breaks down in a singularity, which means there was no such thing as time before time.  Asking what caused it is a broken question."

That's fine, but the fact is that there is a Universe, and we'd like to know why it exists.  Saying that because a question clearly cannot be answered, the question is faulty, smells to me a lot like a philosophical Goddidit.

---

Science doesn't discover meta anything.  Metaphysics is meant to be different than empirical whatsits.  If anything is empirical, it's just physics.  If we are not capable of making knowledge statements without reference -to- the empirical..to "discovery" then we have no valid conception of a meta anything..again, it's just physics.

Infinite regress is not a problem for physics, it's a problem for a system of generating answers that relies on a terminus that may not exist, an issue for an empty set.

Right.  So if you have a question which is clearly metaphysical, then the study of physics is not going to answer it. Physics is bounded by the Universe, so if you ask questions about why or how physics is a thing, you can't use physics to answer that question.

[Succubus]

Do mind scientific evidence isn't always realiable. Science is still evolving and had to crawl back on what they thought to be evidence more than often so why pin down on it so much?

Nobody ate fifty eggggs. And nobody writes that way. This faux English of yours is an act. This is how it's done...

DNA has a property that cannot be explained by natural processes. Locked securely inside the double helix structure of DNA is a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G. In a written language information is communicated by a precise arrangement of letters.

Now that was one beautifully constructed post. Twelve and a half thousand replies.

This! Is how to troll. Wanker!

[The Grand Nudger]

You're begging the question of there being any answer or any question that is "clearly metaphysical" to begin with.  Again, metaphysics may be an empty set.

[bennyboy]

You're begging the question of there being any answer or any question that is "clearly metaphysical" to begin with.  Again, metaphysics may be an empty set.

The advantages of being agnostic abound.  It may be that it's turtles all the way down, or it may not be. I'm pretty comfortable with not pretending to know which might be the case.

But science is very much about observing features OF a particular framework-- this Universe.  So we can start with a simple question: do we have evidence that science can transcend this one level of reality to explain why it exists rather than not?  And the answer is-- no.

Let's take the God idea, and an appeal for evidence.  If some but not all people could walk on water, would that be evidence for God?  I'd say no.  What if bushes could talk and burn?  I'd say no.  What if one man could raise his arms and part a mighty sea?  I'd still say no.  That's because no amount of material interactions are evidence for the immaterial, because material and immaterial are unlike, and evidence for one hasn't been demonstrated to be meaningful evidence for the other.

[The Grand Nudger]

If no amount of evidence can establish the existence of y, then nothing establishes the existence of y.  You're begging the same question with a different vernacular.  Just like the metaphysical, and for the same reasons...the "immaterial" may be an empty set.

Produce at least a single example of anything that is immaterial or metaphysical? Good luck, given the handicaps you've set for yourself.