# "There is no such thing as metaphysics."

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 23, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825 "2006-02-23T18:22:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/41 "2006-03-01T15:16:06Z")

</div>

> [@Tev](#):
>
> Thanks again for the explanation - your position is therefore, as I understand it, “It’s not necessary to use anything beyond the physical to explain any phenomenon”, rather than the simple “There is nothing beyond the physical”?

Well, both, **given** my use of Ockham’s Razor in this context. Yes, my primary position is the former. I then say _therefore_ I don’t believe in anything beyond the physical.

Again, it’s directly equivalent to my position regarding God. I don’t consider that God is _necessary_ as an entity, only _optional_. While others don’t mind ‘keeping’ optional things (“The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished” - _Kant_), I prefer to do away with them altogether.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/42 "2006-03-02T12:41:11Z")

</div>

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> You’re quite right - I suspect I’ll struggle to keep my syntax clear here, no matter how hard I try! My point, which I suspect you might find rather circular, was that metaphysics does not IMO provide any falsifiable predictions from which to construct “laws”, statistical regularities, causal mechanisms or any other central requirement of what _I’d_ call an explanation. (Of course, that’s a large part of the reason it’s called _meta_physics rather than physics in the first place.)

No argument with that.

I wish we could all make a deal. Theists: stop using God to prove things about the universe. Atheists: stop using science to prove things about God.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825/43 "2006-03-02T13:05:07Z")

</div>

Deal.

(Even if I used science to demonstrate for _all_ phenomena that God was unnecessary as an explanatory entity, that would still not be a “proof”).

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-such-thing-as-metaphysics/345825.md?page=2)