"Whatever this explanation is, it must be greater than the physical universe."

What does "greater" even mean ? nothing, it can mean what ever you want it to mean.

"but with the power to create each of these things and to establish the laws they obey."

This makes it sound like the laws are prescriptive, rather than descriptive.

" It must be something that explains its own existence and cannot fail to exist."

Or maybe it's something that exists without explanation. Just because we like the idea of things existing that either necessary or contingent doesn't mean reality operates that way.

An introduction to quantum mechanics is a good lesson in how you think things should be can be so far beyond how far things actually are.

" the only being that can be necessary must be a being whose essence (or what it is) is identical to its existence (or that it is). But only one being could simply be being itself and ground the existence of all other contingent realities. This is at the most basic level what God is."

That's not a causality/contingency argument for God, it's an ontological argument.

God exists because it's impossible for God to not exist, why even bother with causality arguments if that is a rock solid argument.

Maybe nothing exists that exists necessarily.

Maybe there are multiple things that exist necessarily, why does it have to be only the "God" you believe in ? cause you assert as such ?

"the only being that can be necessary must be a being whose essence (or what it is) is identical to its existence (or that it is)"

WHAT ?

The reason why the discussion is halted is that you are answering the epistemological question, while I am asking the metaphysical question. Obviously, no direction towards truth can be made if we aren't addressing the same question. There is no need for your response, but I'll try and show what the metaphysical question is below.

My statement would be "I have created a model that I hope has some connection to reality but I cannot be 100% sure that it does.

Would you agree with this statement:
We can be 100% sure that there is an answer (metaphysical question), we just may never know what the perfect answer actually is (epistemological question). But we can work so that we continue to more perfectly approximate that perfect answer. We can say something true about the way reality is without saying it perfectly. Partial truth is possible.

Some of your answers makes it sound like you think that partial truth is not possible. I don't think that is what you would actually hold, but your philosophical position says that is what you believe.

I think you would hold that even an imperfect model says something true about reality. It just doesn't say it perfectly. In fact saying that you hold an imperfect model, means that you believe there is a perfect model to discover and formulate.

Either your model says (a) nothing true, (b) something partially true, or (c) something perfectly true. If the model has any connection to reality (a) is not possible. The realist position would be that most models are (b). And (b) assumes that (c) is possible (maybe not for humans though).

Is not the purpose of a "model" to try and model the way that reality actually exists? In other words, when we provide a true model for the way that gravity acts here on earth we are saying that, "gravity actually exists in such a way that it acts in 'x' way according to this model."

It is the purpose sure. I'm just pointing out that it is not possible to be 100% sure that is what it is doing. Difficult to assert it as a metaphysical truth as you keep insisting.

If you wish to hold position (a) without holding position (b) your statement would actually be, "I have created a model that really has no connection to the way that gravity acts in reality here on earth". Your model is mental gymnastics.

No. My statement would be "I have created a model that I hope has some connection to reality but I cannot be 100% sure that it does."

I think we can confidently say, no, the former is what our models are actually trying to do.

Oh it is what we are trying to do. Sure. I just dispute that we can be certain they are doing it.

In the former, you are concerned with the "foundations, methods, and implications of science". In the latter, you are studying the actual nature of reality and underlying structures that every other science relies upon.

So to do good metaphysics it is not intrinsically necessary to have any knowledge of the methods of science in general. But I do think it helps because you can spot when someone is using physics to do bad metaphysics.

So you are studying the actual nature of reality without knowing anything about reality. This is what makes me think that metaphysics is the mental gymnastics. If you are studying anything at all it is the map not the territory.

Looking back at our old posts I think we have been chasing this one for long enough. I'm going to leave it here.

I suspect that it sounds like it because you are filtering it through your own ideas. Read what I said. It is, to me at least a big leap from:

(a) a certain process allows me to generate models of some parts of reality of high accuracy in their predictive power

to

(b) "what science is studying is actually intelligible and knowable, in and of itself, and that the human intellect is capable of knowing it."

Nothing about my claim in (a) says that I can ever have model of reality that is completely accurate and that is what I would call knowable. Of course I probably agree roughly with (b) but I wouldn't call it a truth.

Is not the purpose of a "model" to try and model the way that reality actually exists? In other words, when we provide an actual model for the way that gravity acts here on earth we are saying that, "gravity exists in such a way that it acts in 'X' way according to this model."

If you wish to hold position (a) without holding position (b) your statement would actually be, "I have created a model that really has no connection to the way that gravity acts in reality here on earth".

I think we can confidently say, no, the former is what our models are actually trying to do. Our scientific models are capable of coming to truths about reality, even though many will most likely never explain reality perfectly. I think people get nervous when someone tries to say that we can have perfect, clear, and concise knowledge of reality (like Descartes wanted) so they try and head more towards the skeptical end of the spectrum. But instead of ending up in the middle between complete skepticism and perfect knowledge, they end up at complete skepticism. I would promote a realist epistemology where partial knowledge of actually existing reality is possible.

How can you understand what is going on beneath the surface of science if you don't understand science ?

I think that someone studying the philosophy of science should have some knowledge of science itself. Obviously the philosophy of science and metaphysics are very different. In the former, you are concerned with the "foundations, methods, and implications of science". In the latter, you are studying the actual nature of reality and underlying structures that science relies upon.)

Do you include in your list of reputable scientists people like Sam
Harris, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, Laurence Krauss ? Or by
reputable do you not mean their scientific reputation ?

I was speaking of their scientific reputation. In other words, there are some men and women doing great science, but then they turn around and try to make some absurd philosophical claims! In other words, scientists doing bad philosophy. And this is nothing against them, it just means they have to realize when they've stopped doing science and entered another field that they are not skilled in yet.

Even if the world is completely intelligible, we could still be wrong in all of our explanations, so I don't think the complete intelligibility of the world necessitates that our explanations are correct.

That is very true, but if explanations are even possible that necessarily means that the world is actually intelligible in and of itself.

In other words, it is incoherent is say, "I have explained something that can't be explained."

it sounds like you would hold that science is not simply mental gymnastics; science is capable of, and actually is, coming to know something true about reality.

I suspect that it sounds like it because you are filtering it through your own ideas. Read what I said. It is, to me at least a big leap from

(a) a certain process allows me to generate models of some parts of reality of high accuracy in their predictive power

to

(b) "what science is studying is actually intelligible and knowable, in and of itself, and that the human intellect is capable of knowing it."

Nothing about my claim in (a) says that I can ever have model of reality that is completely accurate and that is what I would call knowable. Of course I probably agree roughly with (b) but I wouldn't call it a truth .

Some of the reason for the disconnect in some of our discussions is that they can be very philosophical, and it doesn't seem like you have tons of experience with philosophy, its method, and what it is actually trying to do?

I've no training in philosophy although I have read a bit through the years. My background is in mathematics and physics followed by some 35 years of research in mathematics and mathematical physics. I am a great admirer of philosophy when it comes to the study of ideas but it wasn't until I came here that I discovered that some people think it can be used, particularly metaphysics, to study things that science can't. I've read lots of comments here and seen no evidence to support that claim. The arguments, for example the so-called arguments for the existence of gods based on metaphysics are just shoddy by mathematical standards. Things are not defined and the supposedly logical leaps are not logical.

I readily admit that science is not my area of expertise. Though I try and take what reputable scientists say, contemplate it, and understand what is going on beneath the surface.

This is why you will find many scientists dubious about philosophy of science. How can you understand what is going on beneath the surface of science if you don't understand science ?

Do you include in your list of reputable scientists people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, Laurence Krauss ? Or by reputable do you not mean their scientific reputation ?

Because, I hold that I can know whether something is intelligible or not without believing that the world is completely intelligible.

Even if the world is completely intelligible, we could still be wrong in all of our explanations, so I don't think the complete intelligibility of the world necessitates that our explanations are correct.

On (1)--it sounds like you would hold that science is not simply mental gymnastics; science is capable of, and actually is, coming to know something true about reality. This means that you must necessarily hold that what science is studying actually intelligible, actually knowable.

In other words, it makes no sense for you to say, "I know something that can't be known." Or "I'm explaining something that can't be explained." That's absurd!

-----

If (2) is not true, then you would hold what I just stated above, "Science is explaining something that can't be explained." Which is an incoherent belief. (2) is stating that if what science is studying can't actually be known/explained (for whatever reason), then what science is doing is equal to the leaves rustling. It is pointless mental gymnastics that look and sound real neat, but accomplish absolutely nothing.

In regards to defining "intelligible"--to be able to be known is simply what it means. Something can actually be known/be explained. I don't quite understand your circular point, as when you look up something in that dictionary we don't usually claim that all those words are being argued for circularly.

Figuring out if reality is knowable, in and of itself, is not mental gymnastics because reason can help us figure out this truth of reality! Unfortunately, we live in a culture that have become skeptical of reason, even though they claim to hold it up so as to "beat down faith"! It is quite odd.

----

Some of the reason for the disconnect in some of our discussions is that they can be very philosophical, and it doesn't seem like you have tons of experience with philosophy, its method, and what it is actually trying to do? I could be wrong, but this is simply an overall observation. (I readily admit that science is not my area of expertise. Though I try and take what reputable scientists say, contemplate it, and understand what is going on beneath the surface.)

Here are the two metaphysical truths on this:

1) If science is not simply mental gymnastics, then you must hold that what science is studying is actually intelligible and knowable, in and of itself, and that the human intellect is capable of knowing it.

2) If what science is studying is not actually intelligible and knowable, in and of itself, or the human intellect is capable of knowing it, then science is simply mental gymnastics.

For (1) I hold only that up until now we have been pretty successful at the process of observation, modelling and testing and obtaining from that apparently accurate models of reality. I expect, based on that past experience that we will continue to do so. I don't have any particular expectations though that this process will end up with a final model that is arbitrarily accurate as distinct from a patchwork of models describing different parts of reality or perhaps a sequence of models of increasing accuracy that doesn't terminate.

Can your metaphysics settle these questions for me ? I doubt it. We have to just suck it and see.

I don't know what (2) actually means. I've not seen anyone in this discussion define intelligible or knowable other than by some circular dictionary chase. Intelligible means can be understood, understood means can be known etc, etc. I understand about developing a model of reality and testing its accuracy. But all this discussion of reality being knowable "in and of itself" is mental gymnastics from my perspective.

What would keep you from falling into complete skepticism about every belief you hold, including the one you just proposed?