What does it matter . . . ?

[37818]

It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life and there is no good reason to think that the alleged resurrection is an exception.

This is the only argument that can be made against the historical claim. But then there is undisputable evidence the observable universe seems to have a beginning. And there as yet not being any evidence to the contrary.

[37818]

As far as any methodology reliability refers to how consistently and reliably the methods may be applied and tested.

A test for metaphysical claims can be verified using ideas about known physical things.

[shunyadragon]

This is the only argument that can be made against the historical claim. But then there is undisputable evidence the observable universe seems to have a beginning. And there as yet not being any evidence to the contrary.

Seems is trapy word.In reality there is no objective evidence that our physical existence whether you are considering our universe only or the greater cosmos is definitively temporal or eternal, or actually finite or infinite. There are currently recent cyclic models proposed for our universe that are possible explanations for our universe.

[shunyadragon]

A test for metaphysical claims can be verified using ideas about known physical things.

No, no objective evidence to demonstrate metaphysical claims and give consistent testable results.

[37818]

Seems is trapy word.In reality there is no objective evidence that our physical existence whether you are considering our universe only or the greater cosmos is definitively temporal or eternal, or actually finite or infinite. There are currently recent cyclic models proposed for our universe that are possible explanations for our universe.

What undeniable evidence do you have for an eternal universe?

No, no objective evidence to demonstrate metaphysical claims and give consistent testable results.

Can you show a known physical fact that cannot be tested using a metaphysical test?

[Leonhard]

What does it matter if what you do not believe happens to be true over against what you actually believe happens not to be true?

That's a very convoluted way of asking "What does it matter if what you believe is true or false?"

The answer to that is simply that if you desire to know what things are true, then it most certainly matters to you whether your beliefs are actually right, or wrong.

[37818]

That's a very convoluted way of asking "What does it matter if what you believe is true or false?"

The answer to that is simply that if you desire to know what things are true, then it most certainly matters to you whether your beliefs are actually right, or wrong.

One would think, one would want to choose what is true. Yet according the Romans 3:11 humans at large do not.

[shunyadragon]

What undeniable evidence do you have for an eternal universe?

You are not citing my posts accurately. There is no definitive evidence that can determine whether our physical existence is eternal nor temporal, nor ultimately finite nor infinite.

Can you show a known physical fact that cannot be tested using a metaphysical test?

There are no physical facts that can be tested using a metaphysical test.

Can you define what a metaphysical test is?

[Tassman]

What undeniable evidence do you have for an eternal universe?

We do not know whether the universe is finite or infinite, science has possible explanations for either concept...it’s a work in progress, as is all science.

Can you show a known physical fact that cannot be tested using a metaphysical test?

There is no way to test metaphysical claims, because there is no way to establish the premise of a metaphysical argument to be true. And without a verifiable true premise one cannot deductively establish a conclusion that we can know to be true.

[37818]

That a thing is true or not true has or does not have consequences. Comparing two contradictory claims - only one of the two can be true. Both can conceivably be false. Now what can be physically tested can be tested. Knowing the physical results if one was to presume what was not true to be true and what was true was not true would there be any known consequence?

Weighing consequence would be how metaphysical ideas are to be tested. A threat of poison, of injury or death where an physical unknown is concerned are treated with caution. Metaphysics where real claims are being made should be weighed with caution, should they not? Which comes to the question, what does it matter?

Pascal's wager was set between two premises which Pascal had set forth as the choices. To add other components changes the choices.

[shunyadragon]

That a thing is true or not true has or does not have consequences. Comparing two contradictory claims - only one of the two can be true. Both can conceivably be false. Now what can be physically tested can be tested. Knowing the physical results if one was to presume what was not true to be true and what was true was not true would there be any known consequence?

Weighing consequence would be how metaphysical ideas are to be tested. A threat of poison, of injury or death where an physical unknown is concerned are treated with caution. Metaphysics where real claims are being made should be weighed with caution, should they not? Which comes to the question, what does it matter?

Pascal's wager was set between two premises which Pascal had set forth as the choices. To add other components changes the choices.

The wager as proposed by Pascal artificially eliminated all alternative choices but two, Christianity and atheism. and proposed the pragmatic dishonest fear based recommendation to chose Christianity, because of the possibility that of the consequences of making the wrong choice if Christianity is true.

[Tassman]

Weighing consequence would be how metaphysical ideas are to be tested. A threat of poison, of injury or death where an physical unknown is concerned are treated with caution. Metaphysics where real claims are being made should be weighed with caution, should they not? Which comes to the question, what does it matter?

No, this is not metaphysics, this is scientific methodology whereby hypotheses are proposed and tested. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability.

Pascal's wager was set between two premises which Pascal had set forth as the choices. To add other components changes the choices.

The “God” component of Pascal’s Wager cannot be shown to be true, consequently the conclusion of the Wager cannot be shown to be true or meaningful. Pascal’s Wager is no more than a cynical appeal to fear.

[37818]

The wager as proposed by Pascal artificially eliminated all alternative choices but two, Christianity and atheism. and proposed the pragmatic dishonest fear based recommendation to chose Christianity, because of the possibility that of the consequences of making the wrong choice if Christianity is true.

Well it set between Pascal's choices as he presented them. Pascal's view of God and Christianity over against his portrayal of not believing in his view of God.

Now the order of choices compared by two my change the finial choice. But without logically comparing different ideas and weighing one view against another, one really cannot deduce a better view. One, of course, cannot choose between views one does not know about.

Do you know a better way?

[shunyadragon]

Well it set between Pascal's choices as he presented them. Pascal's view of God and Christianity over against his portrayal of not believing in his view of God.

Now the order of choices compared by two my change the finial choice. But without logically comparing different ideas and weighing one view against another, one really cannot deduce a better view. One, of course, cannot choose between views one does not know about.

Do you know a better way?

Pascal's wager is not the reality of possible choices.

Increase what you 'know about' and do not live in Plato's cave of ignorance.

[37818]

No, this is not metaphysics, this is scientific methodology whereby hypotheses are proposed and tested. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability.

Metaphysical claims cannot be physically tested. But if true or not true can be weighed as to value or consequences.

The “God” component of Pascal’s Wager cannot be shown to be true, consequently the conclusion of the Wager cannot be shown to be true or meaningful. Pascal’s Wager is no more than a cynical appeal to fear.

It also has never be shown to be false concern.

Do you have a rational definitive argument that God cannot be the uncaused existence in which all other things exist?