Surendra Darathy wrote:Little Idiot wrote:That based on the assumption that the only possible way of knowing is by empirical - How can you possibly demonstrate that. Presumably if emperical method is the only way to know things, this question must be answered by using emperical method.
This is as if to say that a logical proof demonstrates knowledge beyond the empirical. But that logical proof must be confronted. OK, fine. Do you just say, "Well there's my proof, and it stands as a proof of knowledge beyond the empirical."
But I showed a couple of examples which as yet still stand as distinct from emperical. If you can show it is emperical, then do so. Since you do not, I suggest this is because you can not. Therefore my point stands, all you have is smoke and mirrors.
We're back to what Pannenberg was trying to do at RDnet, which was to show that none of his axioms could be rejected. What is it, then to "reject an axiom"? Especially one that has not been presented?
Those who extol the virtues of proving metaphysical claims by asserting that their axioms are unimpeachable have only placed the problem at one more remove.
Anyone who claims to have such a proof will present it the way Pannenberg tried to do, state his axioms plainly, and let the confrontation take place. I don't see that happening here.
Since I never made such a claim I have no need to present my none-existent unimpeachable axioms I never once claimed to have. More smoke and mirrors.
Little Idiot wrote:What this has no bearing on is that the same maths can be applied to non-emperical subjects too.
Nevertheless, if you are going to engage in non-empirical proofs, you must present a set of axioms. But we seem to be skipping by that, rather gaily, to an assertion that presentation of axioms is not necessary. This is the "Argument from claiming to be able to bend a spoon." The catch is that it is a non-empirical spoon.
Why so?
Your the one talking about unimpeachable axioms and spoon bending, I never claimed either.
Little Idiot wrote:Presumably if emperical method is the only way to know things, this question must be answered emperical method.
All you have to do to show that there is a means of knowledge beyond the empirical is to lay out the axioms and present the proof.
Why should I present axioms, the proof alone is enough.
And an example of knowlegde gained from any other method stands as pretty good proof, IMHO.
We come back to my question; why not show how the examples I used can be gained by emperical method? It is clear that if you could, you would, since you dont, then you cant.
Otherwise, you're just saying, "I have knowledge beyond the empirical, but I can't show it to you because it's beyond the empirical."
What do you need in order to accept that your unsupported statements are not being dismissed prejudicially. If you don't wish to present evidence, present some axioms.
Oh I accept that my statements are not being dismissed prejudicially. My problem with what you are saying, is simply that you are not dismissing my statements at all; What you are doing is providing smoke and mirrors, not actually addressing, less still dismissing my statement that I have provided two exampes of knowing by other methods.
A statement that "the universe consists of the empirical, plus something that is beyond the empirical" is not an axiom,
Suppose another statement, that "the empirical universe simply cannot be all that is". Is this an "axiom"?
A discussant who treats such statements as axioms had better define the difference between axioms and articles of faith. Usually a logician will start with something simpler, such as "'A and ~A' is a contradiction".
This is why a statement that "metaphysics is an error" only leaves one waiting for a proof that it is not an error. A good set of axioms would be a nice start.
Perhaps it is not fair to say, "metaphysics is an error" and more fair to say, "metaphysics has no axioms".
First show how my two examples of knowlegde are gained by emperical method, then we talk more.
Little Idiot wrote:
I have shown that physical existence can not be known to be the only possible existence, and that reality may be different to physical existence therefore there is a theoretically possible ‘other’ reality apart from existence and thus justified metaphysics as the enquiry into the theoretically possible ‘other.’
You have also not shown that you don't have a monster under bed. Does that mean you have a monster under your bed?
As per example, it does show that an enquiry into the question 'is there a monster under the bed?' is valid.
I normally conduct the investigation with my 3 year old.
With adults I normally stick to investigation of the reality of my being and experience.
You have done nothing to make me think I should stop either activity.
jamest wrote:Metaphysical content need not be empirical, although it may draw from empirical evidence its enquiry is not limited to empirical. However, this does not suggest the metaphysics is in error, it simply shows it is not empirical. As SoS has agreed, we don’t know that empirical is the only way of knowing. In fact we do know that it is not the only way of knowing, therefore to say metaphysics is not emperical does not mean metaphysics is not a way of knowing.
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:I don't know what any of this means, and I don't know how you think you can make these claims without any evidence or argument.
Little Idiot wrote:something IS actual or is NOT
There's an example of trying to do non-contradiction, but without defining "actual". See? You pretend you've gotten started, but you haven't. "Actual" is a superfluous word there. A statement either is (true) or is not (true). It doesn't make the statement
more true to say "this statement is
actually true". "Actual" is a bullshit term, unless by it you mean "empirical". I will agree that a statement is supported empirically or it is not. If it is not, by what is it supported?
I have no problem with saying; A statement either is (true) or is not (true).
let the statement be P is reality, then
P is reality either is (true) or is not (true).
This is exactly my point, being; P is reality is either true or not true, there are no 'partly true' options with reality. Comte de Saint-Germain seemed to strugle with that idea.
Glad you agree with me
Little Idiot wrote:Which is exactly what I am refering to; using concepts outside there domain is a limitation on the concepts and language used not a limit on metaphysics.
Little Idiot wrote:I can think and talk of something beyond space time using very specific thoughts and language; metaphysics can provide a frame work to hold thought steady in this subtle realm.
Surendra Darathy wrote:You can use the phrase "something beyond space and time". Just words, so far. That "something" is not bespoke. In that phrase, "something" is rather like an algebraic placeholder. The statement is not yet an equation, using the analogy of mathematics. When you go a little farther, you make a simple tautology, such as "God is that which is beyond space and time." Are we any the wiser? The statement has an "equals sign" in it, but the tautology is too simple to be informative.
As it stands your statement "God is that which is beyond space and time." adds nothing to wisdom.
However with proper understanding of what the verbal tags; "God," "is that," "which is," "beyond," "space and time" it has potential to add significantly to an individuals wisdom. It would not, of course add to humanities collective wisdom, since this has been known and expounded in various forms for significantly more than 3000 years.
An advanced intellect can consider fairly the merits of an idea when the idea is not its own.
An advanced personality considers the ego to be an ugly thing, and none more so that its own.
An advanced mind grows satiated with experience and starts to wonder 'why?'
I am impressed. 
