Well, perhaps, you don't, but, then, you shouldn't have responded to my reply to Jeff as it doesn't concern you. It seems to me that there is no reason to hold statements about metaphysical postulates in higher regard than statements about the empirical world (including demonstrably false ones), but some people do, including on this list. So, I'm asking why.
>BTW I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing "the God in
>the Bible" as opposed to "'thing' that created everything" or
>"metaphysical ground of being." The former is (presumably) a myth.
>The latter is a metaphysical postulate.
Besides, as far as metaphysical postulates are concerned, one is free to postulate anything, so why not the "'thing' that will destroy everything" or "metaphysical ground of unbeing" as opposed to the "'thing' that created everything' or 'metaphysical ground of being"?
By the same token, one is free not to postulate anything metaphysical at all. Is there any reason it's better to posit metaphysical postulates than not to posit them? -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>