I apologize for bothering you as I greatly respect your choice of addressing the more pressing priorities right now as combox discussion ought to be pretty low on most of our priority lists! Know I expect no response in regards to this. But I wanted to pass this along before I forget. This was in a great book about the current state of theoretical physics which I've been reading the past month:

This is what Einstein wrote to a young physicist who was trying to add philosophy classes to his physics courses without any luck:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today--and even professional scientists--seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but have never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historical and philosophical background gives the kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is--in my opinion--the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker of truth." --Einstein

This is a big reason why knowledge of philosophy of nature, metaphysics, and philosophy of science is so important for science. I honestly think that philosophically literate scientists normally have the best chance of becoming great scientists.

Please know I will miss you greatly. If you can believe it, I never met an Atheist before coming to SN.
I now proudly can say - I met Doug Shaver, he's a good man. I look forward to your return. :)

Phil, thank you for the kind words.

As I mentioned in another thread many days ago, circumstances have placed demands on my time that compel me to suspend my forum activities for an indefinite period. However, your comments and questions on this subject intrigue me greatly, and I am loathe to ignore them. I can promise nothing, but I will see if there is some way for me to give them the attention they merit.

Doug--A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family and friends! After a successful completion of another semester of grad school and a blessed Advent, I wanted to make sure I got back to you and our delightful discussion.

---------------

In Regards to our Discussion of Metaphysical Principles in General:

You had last stated:

I am not claiming to have disproved any metaphysical principles using science. All I have claimed so far is that I have no reason to believe in any metaphysical principles. If you can offer a nonscientific reason to believe in your metaphysical principles, then you may present that
reason and I will critique it when I see it.

Let's look at that second statement: "All I have claimed so far is that I have no reason to believe in any metaphysical principles."

It seems you have admitted above that one can't use the natural physical sciences to show that this belief of yours true. This is because it is itself a metaphysical belief/principle. Therefore, you must use good philosophical metaphysical arguments and principles to show that this above statement is true.

But this leads to something quite interesting: to prove that there are no metaphysical principles in all reality one has to use metaphysical/philosophical argumentation. This is what we call a self-refuting belief and that original belief can't be coherently held.

Therefore, we necessarily conclude that there are metaphysical principles to be discovered in reality. What they are must be figured out by using proper metaphysical/philosophical rigor to discover how reality actually exists as its deepest levels (e.g., the most common general ones argued for are a materialist, dualist, or hylomorphic metaphysics).

That is not exactly what I believe. What I believe is that science has, up until now, explored and explained the universe without having to invoke any metaphysical principles. I do not conclude, from this, that
metaphysical principles do not exist. I infer rather that they are, or at least so far have been, unnecessary for exploring and explaining the universe. And if they are and will continue to be unnecessary, then whatever existence they might have is irrelevant.

What about the metaphysical principle that an entity can bring about some sort of change in another entity (i.e., some principle of causality)? If one doesn't believe this to be true, one can't do science. Therefore, one either implicitly believe this metaphysical principle, or ones belief in the work of science is unfounded.

What about the metaphysical principle that the physical universe is actually able to be intelligibly explored and explained with the physical sciences in the first place? If this metaphysical principle is actually false then science isn't actually explaining the universe. Who knows what it is doing, but it ain't doing that!

To state again though, what if trying to find metaphysical principles with science is like trying to discover infrared waves with an x-ray detector? Therefore, no matter how long you do science you will never discover any metaphysical principle. But one then can't conclude that they don't exist. You must simply conclude that science is the wrong "detector" for metaphysical principles.

And we do have metaphysics "detector", it's called the study of metaphysics and philosophy as a whole (as you are probably aware, metaphysics is just a specific branch of philosophy).

-------------------------

In regards to false dichotomies and the goodness of entities:

The key thought you wrote is:

Our judgment may be erroneous if we use the wrong reasons or are illogical in applying the right reasons, but we will have our reasons, and those reasons will involve certain objectively verifiable characteristics of the thing being judged. Our reasons will also involve certain objectively verifiable characteristics of the situation we are
in when making our judgment. There are things that are good for us in some situations and not good for us in other situations. To that extent, it cannot be true that goodness is completely subjective. Our judgment that something is good will be justified or unjustified depending on certain facts that will obtain regardless of any belief we may have to the contrary.

If you go back to what I explained the classical philosophical understanding of ontological goodness to be, it was simply that an entity, and all entities, is potentiality desirable for some end/goal. What you wrote above describes this process well. And all we have to admit is that objects themselves are desirable for certain ends because of how they objectively exist to see that ontological goodness exists in entities.

In short, to hold that entities have no value in and of themselves would be to hold that that is nothing about a knife that makes is desirable--have value--for cutting. Whether a person's subjective view about the value/goodness of the knife is correct or not is something that can be rationally argued as you said. But what makes the knife valued is how it exists, in and of itself. In other words, we don't give "good cutting powers" to a knife through our subjective mind. It exists in a sharp knife just by its very existence.

But then later on you state to my question of what makes any object good:

Nothing makes it [the entity] good. The facts of the situation make my judgment that it is good a correct judgment.

But where do these "facts of the situation" come from? They come from how reality, and how the entity specifically, actually exists. There is something about the entity and reality, i.e, the situation, that makes the entity valued/good for a certain end (see my knife example above).

The second question that must be asked is how can your judgment about the value of an object in a certain situation be right or wrong if there is no objective goodness/value in external reality? The answer is that only if we believe that value/goodness exists apart from our mind could we even say that something can be judged to be good/bad.

So to reiterate--it is not your subjective belief about the goodness/value of the knife for cutting that makes it actually good/valuable for cutting. The "knife object" itself is either good/valuable for cutting or it is not. Goodness/value exist in some manner in the object itself.

actually, i have no words to describe 'trinity' as just 'invention' by some churches. we find many scriptural support for the Godhead of Jesus, as the Creator of all things (John 1:1).

Sorry Neil, Humans didn't invent the trinity.
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. Catholic Encyclopedia.

God is incomprehensive. God is beyond our understanding. Only humans 'invented' the concept of Trinitarian God, but in anyway, God is incomprehensible

'a single replicating molecule' -- the creator of atheists

'a single God' -- the Creator of theists

so atheists stop all your pretentions that there was never a cause for the universe and life. you are just making yourself hilarious and irrational

Thanks for the notice. I might be having to take a break from the forum myself for a few weeks. Whenever we're both back, I look forward to taking up where we left off.

So that you don't think I'm ignoring your responses, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be MIA for about the next month.

But I do want to continue our discussion, so I promise I will respond!