For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics. — Bartricks

Only metaphysicians are authoritative on the existence of a God? That doesn’t make sense.

Yes it does. Who else is an expert on it, then?

You think a biologist is an expert on whether a god exists?

Have you read The God Delusion? If you have, and if you thought the one chapter in it dedicated to the question of whether God exists was a good chapter, written by an expert in the area who fully understood the arguments he was talking about, then I bet my house and everything in it that you are not a metaphysician.

Who else is an expert on it, then? — Bartricks

It doesn't follow logically that anyone is such an expert.

Experts on whether a god exists or not are metaphysicians, for it is a topic in metaphysics.

Not all metaphysicians are experts on whether a god exists, but all those who are expert on whether a god exists are metaphysicians. And that does follow logically because, like I say, to be an expert on whether a god exists 'just is' to be an expert on a metaphysical question.

Take a course in any subject to you like, you won't deal rigorously with the question "does a god exist?" until or unless you take a course in philosophy. Specifically, philosophy of religion or 'western philosophy' or something like that.

It isn't studied in biology. It isn't studied in physics. It isn't studied in engineering, or architecture, or food science. Philosophy alone deals with it.

I suppose you’ll have to trust me when I say that no one needs support in a confrontation with the forum clown. — praxis

I trust you when you say that. I’m consistently reading into things that others don’t see. My doc says my mind plays tricks on me, but my ability to read people seems to me to work most of the time.

↪A Seagull Is your username "A Seagull" because you're just here to shit on everything? — Pfhorrest

No it isn't.

Is your username Pfhorrest because you are an idiot?

A lot of philosophy is systems-thinking and you can make right or wrong moves within systems. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I agree, but do those systems have a direct connection to the real world? My answer is that no they don't.

Experts on whether a god exists or not are metaphysicians, for it is a topic in metaphysics — Bartricks

You haven't proven that there are actual experts on the existence of god. You simply assert that if they do exist they are metaphysicists. I would concur, since in my opinion there are no experts in this regard.

Experts on whether a god exists or not are metaphysicians, — Bartricks

Don't you mean theologians? It's in the word itself, "theo," from the Gk, ό θεός: "knowledge of God." The only place I can think of where metaphysics is used in that sense is the religion, astrology, mysticism whackdoodle section of certain large bookstores notorious for having their own ideas about how to classify books. Is that where you've been hanging out?

This feature of the contemporary conception of metaphysics is nicely illustrated by a statement of Sartre's:

I do not think myself any less a metaphysician in denying the existence of God than Leibniz was in affirming it. (1949: 139) — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think your post is generally correct - in that anyone who is an expert on whether God exists is a metaphysician, but must one have taken a course in philosphy to know God exists? IOW could one not be a practicing religious person who has regular experience of God?

I realize one might argue, via epistemology, that such a person doesn't meet jtb, say, but it seems to me an academic metaphysician, with what turns out to be a great deduction on paper, might have no experience of God at all. It's a bit like telling me I don't know my wife exists but some scientist who never met her does.

IOW I think you are correct about what those who are experts must be, I would just include people who are not academic experts on metaphysics.

No, I meant 'metaphysicians'. That's why I used that word. It too has a Greek origin.

I think your post is generally correct - in that anyone who is an expert on whether God exists is a metaphysician, but must one have taken a course in philosphy to know God exists? — Coben

Those are not equivalent claims. Someone could know that God exists, yet not be an expert on the question of whether God exists. For example, someone can know that they themselves exist, yet not be an expert on what selves are.

The point is just that the question of whether God exists is a question in metaphysics, not science. And so a scientist is not an expert on the matter - they won't know the ins and outs of the various arguments.

There are lots of experts on the question of whether God exists, so I don't really know why you'd say such a thing.

Those are not equivalent claims. Someone could know that God exists, yet not be an expert on the question of whether God exists. — Bartricks

I suppose in the sense of how to argue for that assertion, yes. On the other hand that might not be the best way to demonstrate the existence of God. The best way might be through encouraging and mentoring practice.

For example, someone can know that they themselves exist, yet not be an expert on what selves are. — Bartricks

True. Though when making the case what their specific self is, that one entity, the person in question often has a tremendous advantage. Many are poor at introspection and communication, but in the specific case of demonstrating what my self is like, I should at least be on the panel.

The point is just that the question of whether God exists is a question in metaphysics, not science. — Bartricks

So far, yes. But if someone asked me how to find out about God, or how to find out how to come to the belief or how to experience God, I am not going to refer them to a philosophy department at a University or to the people who write academic texts on metaphysics. Of course those I would send them to might ALSO have a background in the subset of philosophy, metaphysics, but in most cases not. IOW I think this is a process that is experiential and based on practices, perhaps community and certainly real interest, not academic interest, in both sense of academic.

I suppose in the sense of how to argue for that assertion, yes. On the other hand that might not be the best way to demonstrate the existence of God. The best way might be through encouraging and mentoring practice. — Coben

Well, I don't agree with that. To 'demonstrate' the existence of God an argument is needed. And it is metaphysicians who are in the business of discovering and assessing such arguments.

A true metaphysician is, as a philosopher, interested in what's true, not in promoting belief in God per se.

Many are poor at introspection and communication, but in the specific case of demonstrating what my self is like, I should at least be on the panel. — Coben

Again, I disagree. There are plenty of people here who know they exist, but have thoroughly confused ideas about what kind of a thing they are, due to being very stupid.

But if someone asked me how to find out about God, or how to find out how to come to the belief or how to experience God, I am not going to refer them to a philosophy department at a University or to the people who write academic texts on metaphysics. — Coben

If someone wanted to find out about the arguments for God's existence then you most certainly should refer them to a philosophy department and it'd be mad not to - for it is in philosophy departments alone that these questions are rigorously explored by experts.

I suppose in the sense of how to argue for that assertion, yes. On the other hand that might not be the best way to demonstrate the existence of God. The best way might be through encouraging and mentoring practice. — Coben

Note too that someone who was one justified in believing that God exists might, through encountering arguments against that belief - arguments that they do not know how to counter - come to be unjustified in their belief, and thereby lose their knowledge.

Knowing that God exists does not, I think, require knowing arguments for God's existence. But knowledge depends on the existence of a justification. You can be default justified in a belief, and that belief can be true, yet something can happen - one can, for instance, encounter what seems to be good evidence that the belief is false - and through that encounter the default justification can disappear. Thus, what one once knew, one knows no longer. The belief is still true, but now one is not justified in believing it. So knowing that God exists today, does not guarantee that you'll know he exists tomorrow.

A true metaphysician is, as a philosopher, interested in what's true, not in promoting belief in God per se. — Bartricks

I didn't mean promoting. I meant encouraging in the sense of: Oh, you want to know God or know if God exists, well, here's an approach that has worked for many. I did not mean proselytizing which I find generally distasteful.

Again, I disagree. There are plenty of people here who know they exist, but have thoroughly confused ideas about what kind of a thing they are, due to being very stupid. — Bartricks

Sure, but your analogy was from the existence of God to the nature of selves in general. That a person might be fully aware of their existence, but not know how to describe selves is certainly true. But here we are talking about the existence of an entity. To me the analogy is to the existence of one self. If that self in question is me, well, I think I have expertise. Now some people may be better at discussing the issue in the abstract, but put me in the room with the doubters, I have a huge advantage.

Personally, I don't think most people come to belief in God via argument and texts. Most are born into it of course, but then of those who come to it later they generally sought it out and went to experts in the practices. They participated in the system. And I doubt many went to unviersities for this.

If someone wanted to find out about the arguments for God's existence then you most certainly should refer them to a philosophy department and it'd be mad not to - for it is in philosophy departments alone that these questions are rigorously explored by experts. — Bartricks

Yes, but that was not the point I was making. I don't think those arguments are a good way to demonstrate the truth of their conclusions.

Note too that someone who was one justified in believing that God exists might, through encountering arguments against that belief - arguments that they do not know how to counter - come to be unjustified in their belief, and thereby lose their knowledge. — Bartricks

Sure, could happen.

Knowing that God exists does not, I think, require knowing arguments for God's existence. But knowledge depends on the existence of a justification. You can be default justified in a belief, and that belief can be true, yet something can happen - one can, for instance, encounter what seems to be good evidence that the belief is false - and through that encounter the default justification can disappear. — Bartricks

This cuts both ways. One can come across good heady arguments that make you want to deny what you have experienced and correctly interpreted. Obviously the ideal is a combination, but I think demonstrations - even if they must be hard earned over decades - are better than arguments.

So knowing that God exists today, does not guarantee that you'll know he exists tomorrow. — Bartricks

Thinking that God exists because on paper it makes sense to you seems very fragile to me also. Frankly, even more fragile. And then, I am not sure what difference it makes, since it is not relational.

The wider context is that I don't think God can be demonstrated on paper, or proven to exist. However I do think practices can demonstrate it. So, I am disagreeing with your reactions to others - and I find some of their reactions confused at best - but going off on a tangent.

God is a specific creator, not creator in a neutral sense.

A builder is a creator of buildings.

A God is a creator of universes? No. That's not right. We need a new word for it.

God isn't a word we apply to a creator, it has a whole, non-scientific doctrine.

The new word should be defined: X: creator of universes.

When people conflate God, flexing it's meaning, it's annoying - that's suited better for X.

We don't need to rely on the Bible for X. Christians, not only rely on the Bible, but also conflate God to be used in contexts where it's not associated with the Bible.

Let's refresh ourselves.

The universe exists.

Does that mean something must have created it?

If yes...

Is this something God(a characterized creator as the Bible defines)? There is no current evidence to suggest it.

Is this something X, a creator of universes? Yes, we just don't know it personally.

For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics.
— Bartricks

Only metaphysicians are authoritative on the existence of a God? That doesn’t make sense. — praxis

Yes it does. Who else is an expert on it, then? — Bartricks

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God. A biologist, on the other hand, can offer physical evidence supporting or disproving metaphysical claims. For instance, biological evolution appears to contradict claims made about God. Even fields of study like history and sociology have a lot to say about the existence of God.

Yes I agree, but do those systems have a direct connection to the real world? My answer is that no they don't.

I'd say that they do. Philosophers serve on ethics boards. These boards guide what can or cannot happen within, say, medicine. Over time most of the west is moving away from religion and if these atheistic or secular thinkers can lay forth compelling cases for new forms of secular morality then I think we're going to see drastic shifts in, well for one, medical ethics but also many, many other areas.

If you look at the effective altruist movement many of the leaders in that movement are philosophers. that movement is starting to catch on in the public eye and it's very much created by philosophy phds.

the world is moving away from religion whether we like it or not, someone's going to have to create new accounts of morality, truth, reason, etc.

:up: Which is to say that metaphysics is to theology what football is to theology, i.e., nothing at all. Splice hands on that?

And you clearly don't know what it means.

The wider context is that I don't think God can be demonstrated on paper, or proven to exist. However I do think practices can demonstrate it. So, I am disagreeing with your reactions to others - and I find some of their reactions confused at best - but going off on a tangent. — Coben

A god's existence can be proved, and God's existence can be shown to be more reasonably believed than not. But the point here is not whether it can or cannot be, but simply to note that the whole issue is one in metaphysics, not physics, not biology, not chemistry, not psychology, not theology.

Again, it is metaphysicians who search for arguments for and against such matters and metaphysicians who carefully assess these arguments. They do not just pronounce, but analyse. And if you want to learn about the arguments - and truly understand whether they do or do not work - it is in metaphysics alone (broadly construed) that you do so.

But I clearly do. And unlike you, my knowledge is not gleaned from Wikipedia pages and youtube videos.

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God. — praxis

Er, no. That's a metaphysical claim, and it is false.

Those expert on the issue of whether God does or does not exist are metaphysicians. But it does not follow that everything a metaphysician might say about God's existence is metaphysical.

The metaphysical implications of discoveries made in the empirical sciences is a matter metaphysicians, not scientists, are expert on. (But because many academics are hacks and know full well that the ignorant public do not know exactly what they are or are not expert on, they think nothing of writing confident garbage on topics outside their areas of expertise and flogging them to the likes of you).

Whether a god exists or not is a metaphysical question.

The implications of evolution by natural selection for that question is a metaphysical question.

the implications of evolution by natural selection for morality is also, for instance, a metaphysical question (metaethics being a branch of metaphysics).

the implications of morality for the existence of a god is a metaphysical question.

And on and on and on.

These are metaphysical questions investigated by metaphysicians. They're the experts. But there's no law stopping those with no expertise in the area pronouncing on them - and they do. And there is no law stopping others who lack expertise believing everything they say and believing, falsely, that biologists, physicians and psychologists are all experts in these matters. Being stupid is not yet against the law.

Anyway, you, for instance, are clearly not a metaphysician. Yet you are confident that the empirical sciences do investigate questions such as whether a god exists. I rest my case. Just know that when you take biology thinking you'll be investigating whether a god exists, you're in for a big disappointment.

A god's existence can be proved, and God's existence can be shown to be more reasonably believed than not — Bartricks

Support this far-reaching pronouncement with a logical argument. Apply your favorite tool of reason, please.

That would be off topic. The point here is that whether a god exists or not is a question in metaphysics, not maths, or science, or psychology (and thus those whose expertise is exclusively in those other areas are not experts on the question of whether god exists - and not expert on the implications of their discipline's discoveries for that question). Plus without a background in metaphysics you'd be unlikely to recognise it for the proof that it is. You're likely to play the radical sceptic card the moment the going gets tough (you can't prove a god exists, because nothing can be proved!) or fault the argument for being an argument.

Plus without a background in metaphysics you'd be unlikely to recognise it for the proof that it is. — Bartricks

I know I am lacking the credentials, but please display this "proof." Others here may very well be metaphysicians and may be eager to process this information. Thanks. :nerd:

It's off topic. Plus the fact you put "proof" in inverted commas tells me that not only do you lack credentials, but you also lack the humility that should accompany that recognition. For clearly you have already decided that it is no proof at all. True, no? Despite having no expertise in this area, you are confident it is not a proof - confident that no such proof exists. And the basis for that belief? The spoutings of others who, like you, have no expertise in this area, yes?