Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.
Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.
Hmm. Keep in mind that, growing up in a community practically devoid of religion, and not caring about it until about 13-14 (when I wanted and tried to become a theist, and even then I wasn't interested organized religion), and then returning to not caring about it again until a few years ago (when I became an anti-theist*), there are a lot of religious ideas that I have never heard of, and I'm not used to discussing it. Coupled with the fact that English is not my native language, it might be good to keep that in mind.
Anyway, let me see if I understood you correctly: does being non-contingent mean that it is not possible that it exists if it doesn't exist, and that it isn't possible that it doesn't exist if it does?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.[/U]Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence).
The less assumptions you make, the closer to the mark you are likely to come. It doesn't guarantee that it is right, but it is preferable because of probability. We can't deal with absolutes; only probability.See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.
I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.
If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.
Bookmarks