Your answer should just be that you don't claim to know what is beyond this physical world, because it isn' t something that you've studied or looked into at all.

You said that your belief system consists of the scientific study and description of this physical world.

Coherent--Is that why you contradict yourself, and say hilariously nonsensical things like "beyond reality", and are seemingly unaware that you believe in that belief system on faith rather than physical evidence?




Except that, when you disagree with or challenge someone else's (unspecified) statements about what exists beyond this physical world, you yourself are thereby making your own claim about the matter--but that isn't problematic? By the way, you don't say how it's problematic.

Speaking at all about what does or doesn't exist beyond reality is more than problematic, it's asinine. But, once we overlook the silliness of speaking of what is beyond reality, the statement itself, that "Nothing exists beyond reality" isn't problematic at all. It's a safe thing to say, because it's a trueism. Anything, by being "beyond reality", thereby automatically disqualifies itself from being real, from having any reality.

Reality doesn't admit of things that exist beyond it. It shouldn't be necessary to tell you that.




Not so subtle, really.




No.




...Or are an asinine thing to even mention, due to the meaningless and self-contradictoriness of such a statement.

Of course, all this talk of "beyond reality" tells us two things: 1) You haven't a clue that you're talking nonsense; and 2) You believe that "reality" is synonymous with the physical world. Even though there is no physical evidence to support that belief. Faith.




You catch on fast :-) I've already been telling you that metaphysics isn't physics, and says nothing about physical matters.

By the way, I've never made any mention of "the supernatural", or "the supernatural otherworldly realm". Those are your expressions. I wouldn't call what is beyond this world "supernatural", although it has been said to be more natural than this physical world. And you're implying that someone else claims that there is one supernatural realm, consisting of one world other than ours (or several?), and constituting one realm distinct from our world. Who told you that?

That brings up something else: Throught your posting, while criticizing metaphysics, quite unaware that you promote a metaphysics, you disparage statements by advocates ot other metaphysicses--But the problem is that not once to you give a quote, an attributed quote, as an example of what you're talking about.

In your ghost analogy, which I didn't even try to answer or comment on, due to its contradictions and questionable usages, you said "natural. (i.e. physical and real)." Again implying that physical is synonymous with real, and that both are synonymous with natural. There's a metaphysics, of interest to many people, which suggests that the physical world is less natural and less real than what underlies it and is metaphysically prior to it.

Does it prove it? I've already told you that metaphysics isn't subject to the the proof that mathematics is, or even subject to the kind of verification that is possible in physics, though it's difficult to make a comparison between such different subjects.

I've said in these forums that many metaphysical statements really have the force of "What if it's like this?..." or "Could it be like this...?" But there are some metaphysical statements for which it can be convincingly, or even conclusively, argued that, compared to other metaphysical statements, they are at least as plausible or economical, or that they are more plausible or economical. Maybe conclusive arguments are sometimes possible simply because words can say conclusive things about other words, such as your example of finding a contradiction between verbal statements.

Sure, ultimately, knowledge is only possible about things of this world, concepts about this life in this world. Sure, ultimately words can only really say something meaningful about this world and this life. As I said, metaphysics isn't physics. You keep rediscovering that and trumpeting it, and decrying it and complaining about it. The solution? Metaphysics is not for you. So bugger off and stick with what you like.

And remember that all of the above-stated limitations of metaphysical statements and claims apply likewise to your own belief (if it is your belief--you contradict yourself too much for us to know that) that physics, or this physical world, is all of reality.

So the only conclusion that your complaints can really lead to is that you don't like metaphysics--so feel free to stay away from it.

No one has said you should believe anything. I merely gave you advice about what to say, based on what you had said in postings.

"Tell them that you don't know", because there was solid reason to conclude that you don't claim to know (and you said so yourself at the beginning of the posting)

Or, if, as the rest of your posting implies, you do claim to know that the physical world ils all of reality, then that would be your answer when asked your beliefs.

Take your pick. I don't care. It's simple; you either know or you don't.

You know, happy-go-luck, this isn't productive. You can easily spew out these large volumes of nothing but incoherent self-contradiction and thorough sloppiness. And should I then take the time and trouble to go through it, circling your errors, fallacies and self-contradictions with a red pencil, to bring them to your attention? No one's paying me to do that. And you clearly aren't going to benefit from it. So I'm not going to reply again to this discussion. There's nothing more to say.

It isn't just that it's too much time and work pointing out your many errors, fallacies and self-contradictions. It's also your attitude. For you to expect help from me, you'd have to be a lot more humble and a lot less arrogant.

To other thread participants:

If happy-go-lucky is a spokesman for it, with postings such as the one I'm replying to, then "rational" Scientific Materialism is in big trouble.

And please note that I said that I won't reply to happy-go-lucky again in this discussion. That means that happy-go-lucky gets the last word. So I just want to point out that the fact that I don't comment on what he says next doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. It just means that there's nothing more to say to him, and that I've already respected him with more time than he deserves.