Did Jesus visit all the spirit worlds in three days?

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know but I take it all too seriously I guess.  There really is no point in feeding the troll.  I really liked his "FUn" comment- he should get knocked off the board for that. 

I certainly meant no offense with my comment.  If you are thinking I intentionally capitalized the first 2 letters, that was certainly nothing near intentional.  I didn't realize I made the mistake and would not do that to anyone here.   I've posted here for years and haven't come close to being rude like that, as I recall.  I've tried to go back and edit but it is not letting me edit that post.  

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I certainly meant no offense with my comment.  If you are thinking I intentionally capitalized the first 2 letters, that was certainly nothing near intentional.  I didn't realize I made the mistake and would not do that to anyone here.   I've posted here for years and haven't come close to being rude like that, as I recall.  I've tried to go back and edit but it is not letting me edit that post.  

I forgave you and I still like you and I believe we should all be tolerant of each other even if we really do not like or want to hang around in person with each other.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've tried to go back and edit but it is not letting me edit that post.  

Hopefully the mods will do that.  I reported it just in case you didn’t think of that. There has been one other posterI know who had problems editing after the last update. If you don’t edit much, you might not have noticed. 
 

You also might try again in a bit. I have noticed at times some posts don’t allow me to edit, but later do. I wonder if it is because the page is being altered with a new post or someone is quoting or something else confusing the board mechanics and therefore freezing it. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Calm

[Nemesis]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I certainly meant no offense with my comment.  If you are thinking I intentionally capitalized the first 2 letters, that was certainly nothing near intentional.  I didn't realize I made the mistake and would not do that to anyone here.   I've posted here for years and haven't come close to being rude like that, as I recall.  I've tried to go back and edit but it is not letting me edit that post.  

Remember to edit you need to go to the post and look for 3 dots it will bring up a mini menu and should have the edit function.  

[Calm]

Wrong thread. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Calm

[JAHS]

Deleted

Edited November 19, 2020 by JAHS

[Calm]

Oops. Will delete. Sorry. 

[rodheadlee]

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

All we are working with is assumption.  There is no good reason to accept there is a God to start with.  As that assumption gets swallowed there are nothing but assumptions put on top of it, as explanation...and surely the explanations are too twisted and contradicted to mean a whole lot.  Your use of words like perfect, eternal, infinite, efficient, relative etc end up as ways to gloss over the issues...so I ask.  

No matter how many times I throw that Lumber pile up in the air and let it hit the ground, will it come down in the shape of a house? No matter how long that Lumber sits there, like for a million years, will it form itself into a house? Just exactly how do you think the universe and us and everything included in it came to be, by accident? There is certainly no good reason to accept that there is no God.

Edited November 19, 2020 by rodheadlee

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My wife actually has a pedigree chart that allegedly goes back to Adam, tied into royalty which ties into biblical characters.  It's fun to look at and who knows?

Bertrand Russel himself showed that even at his advanced knowledge of logic, it could not be "proven" that the world did not pop into existence 5 minutes ago with all of our alleged memories as implants of some kind

By those standards, I think that makes some variation of the "Adm-God" theory sound ......  comparable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#:~:text=The five-minute hypothesis is,other signs of history included.

 

 

Did your wife serve a mission in Germany around 1969-1972? My mission president's predecessor, Walter Kindt by name, published just such a pedigree chart and gave all his missionaries a copy of it.

There was and probably still is a tendency among people to claim distinguished ancestry falsely in order to gain some notoriety. This results in people discovering claims while doing genealogy that are actually false, and leading them to believe they are descendants of people they actually aren't. In FamilySearch.org, for example, I was once following one line back and checking it out with the actual historical figures indicated, and if I had believed all the links given, I would have been able to claim one particular English king as an ancestor. But there was one crucial link involving a person who was buried in a famous cathedral (Westminster? Canterbury? Don't remember at the moment), who was supposed to have been my ancestor. A brief check of this person's identity outside of FamilySearch showed that this person had died as a child. The FamilySearch information showed this person to have had 20 or so children, all of whom had been born after this person's death. I notified FamilySearch about this, and when I checked later, the mess had been cleaned up. 

On an earlier occasion I followed one line back far enough to discover that I was descended from four Roman Emperors. On yet another occasion I found that I was a descendant of Pocahontas. Neither of these continue to be the case. I guess because Family Search is doing due diligence in researching claims.

What I surmise is that past genealogists discovered these claims in non-verifiable records and too frequently assume them to be true records.  I have a letter written some time back in the 1930s by a great aunt of mine in which she claimed that her branch of the family was descended from a General St. Clair, who had come over from France with Lafayette during the American Revolution. I thought that to be pretty charming! Imagine being descended from such a stellar person! But nope. There was a General Arthur St. Clair, but he was a Scottish-American landowner of Pennsylvania who had nothing to do with Lafayette, other than serving with him as a fellow officer under Washington. I am certain that my aunt was not deliberately making it up, however. This is because one of her great grandfathers was Augustin Leclair, who lived during the time period in question, and no doubt the name similarity, combined with the fog of history, made her think there was a connection. This Augustin Leclair was actually French Quebecois, so that is where the French connection came in.

 

[Stargazer]

Dupe

Edited November 19, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No matter how many times I throw that Lumber pile up in the air and let it hit the ground will it come down in the shape of a house. No matter how long that Lumber sits there like for a million years will it form itself into a house. Just exactly how do you think the universe and us and everything included in it came to be, by accident? There is certainly no good reason to accept that there is no God.

Ignoring the obvious or claiming it's not obvious at all is a common technique of atheists. Even physicist Stephen Hawking tossed causality out the window when it came to the question of how the Universe got there:

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science." 

Yeah, right.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Remember to edit you need to go to the post and look for 3 dots it will bring up a mini menu and should have the edit function.  

Nope.  Doesn't work for me.  When I click the 3 dots, I get two options share and report.  Might be due to the status you guys have assigned me?  Or perhaps some setting on my browser.

 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No matter how many times I throw that Lumber pile up in the air and let it hit the ground, will it come down in the shape of a house? No matter how long that Lumber sits there, like for a million years, will it form itself into a house? Just exactly how do you think the universe and us and everything included in it came to be, by accident? There is certainly no good reason to accept that there is no God.

So you're position is God is the best explanation because it just makes sense to you?  Ok.  Just know that type of argument doesn't go over very well in the real world.  As Hawking (I peaked ahead and saw someone quoted him, so its good to use him again) pointed out, "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" suggesting, there really is no room for the God proposition.  

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ignoring the obvious or claiming it's not obvious at all is a common technique of atheists. Even physicist Stephen Hawking tossed causality out the window when it came to the question of how the Universe got there:

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science." 

Yeah, right.

Perhaps you don't really understand where Hawking was coming from when he said that?  He's pointed out, as far as we can see back, the universe was like the quantum elements as it started, "The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature".  All because at one time the universe was the size of subatomic particles, like electrons and protons that seemingly appear out of nowhere, they disappear and pop back up in a different location.  Is it waves or particles.  Anyway, interesting stuff.  The God proposition is really just a bad argument that for the most part, doesn't have much of a grasp on reality, what is going on, and the laws of, yes we guessed it, science.  

[rodheadlee]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you're position is God is the best explanation because it just makes sense to you?  Ok.  Just know that type of argument doesn't go over very well in the real world.  As Hawking (I peaked ahead and saw someone quoted him, so its good to use him again) pointed out, "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" suggesting, there really is no room for the God proposition.  

A designer and a builder is the best explanation to me. I personally believe the universe is eternal or at least the elements that supply the building blocks are eternal and that a designer took those elements and built things in the universe like earth and the life found on it. Just like I would take a pile of lumber and build a house. The elements are there, land trees to make lumber, water and so forth. It takes a designer and a builder to create a home. In the real world no home builds itself. Unless you want to live in a cave and haul your water to it.

Edited November 19, 2020 by rodheadlee

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

A designer and a builder is the best explanation to me. I personally believe the universe is eternal or at least the elements that supply the building blocks are eternal and that a designer took those elements and built things in the universe like earth and the life found on it. Just like I would take a pile of lumber and build a house. The elements are there, land trees to make lumber, water and so forth. It takes a designer and a builder to create a home. In the real world no home builds itself. Unless you want to live in a cave and haul your water to it.

Ok.  Thanks, Rodheadlee.

[Nemesis]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Nope.  Doesn't work for me.  When I click the 3 dots, I get two options share and report.  Might be due to the status you guys have assigned me?  Or perhaps some setting on my browser.

 

I changed a setting check now.  

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I certainly meant no offense with my comment.  If you are thinking I intentionally capitalized the first 2 letters, that was certainly nothing near intentional.  I didn't realize I made the mistake and would not do that to anyone here.   I've posted here for years and haven't come close to being rude like that, as I recall.  I've tried to go back and edit but it is not letting me edit that post.  

Ok then my mistake.  Thanks for the clarification.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Did your wife serve a mission in Germany around 1969-1972? My mission president's predecessor, Walter Kindt by name, published just such a pedigree chart and gave all his missionaries a copy of it.

There was and probably still is a tendency among people to claim distinguished ancestry falsely in order to gain some notoriety. This results in people discovering claims while doing genealogy that are actually false, and leading them to believe they are descendants of people they actually aren't. In FamilySearch.org, for example, I was once following one line back and checking it out with the actual historical figures indicated, and if I had believed all the links given, I would have been able to claim one particular English king as an ancestor. But there was one crucial link involving a person who was buried in a famous cathedral (Westminster? Canterbury? Don't remember at the moment), who was supposed to have been my ancestor. A brief check of this person's identity outside of FamilySearch showed that this person had died as a child. The FamilySearch information showed this person to have had 20 or so children, all of whom had been born after this person's death. I notified FamilySearch about this, and when I checked later, the mess had been cleaned up. 

On an earlier occasion I followed one line back far enough to discover that I was descended from four Roman Emperors. On yet another occasion I found that I was a descendant of Pocahontas. Neither of these continue to be the case. I guess because Family Search is doing due diligence in researching claims.

What I surmise is that past genealogists discovered these claims in non-verifiable records and too frequently assume them to be true records.  I have a letter written some time back in the 1930s by a great aunt of mine in which she claimed that her branch of the family was descended from a General St. Clair, who had come over from France with Lafayette during the American Revolution. I thought that to be pretty charming! Imagine being descended from such a stellar person! But nope. There was a General Arthur St. Clair, but he was a Scottish-American landowner of Pennsylvania who had nothing to do with Lafayette, other than serving with him as a fellow officer under Washington. I am certain that my aunt was not deliberately making it up, however. This is because one of her great grandfathers was Augustin Leclair, who lived during the time period in question, and no doubt the name similarity, combined with the fog of history, made her think there was a connection. This Augustin Leclair was actually French Quebecois, so that is where the French connection came in.

 

No that was not my sweetheart.

Past a certain point I think most genealogy becomes "his( or her)- story" as opposed to history.

The more I get into family history the clearer this becomes.   Any alleged relative can get in there and tell a third party story coming from someone's failing memory of what- Was it aunt Matilda? said about her cousin and change a chart into total fiction.   I have seen cases where photographs are available and posted and then there are arguments about who one or two of those in the photo "really are" based upon evidence of the memories of the old and feeble.   And they would tell you that "clearly" simply because someone is in the photo it doesn't follow that that HAS to be Uncle Stan.

In my experience almost everything in those records is inaccurate at best.

There was a time when Polish people were persecuted, but of course not being black they looked like any other European, and so they would change their names into Anglo names and then be able to get a job that would otherwise be unavailable because of discrimination.   And if anything will mess up records, unoffical name changes ARE about the worst.  In one of my grandfather's history there are two different brothers who changed their names to two different names.  So we have five biological brothers with 3 different last names!

And if you are 3rd or 4th generation LDS your people cared about things like that where others did not. 

I recall as a kid  one great aunt throwing out old pictures and saying- "Those people are dead and gone- why keep this old junk?  Nobody cares!"

And remember before 1830, NOBODY was LDS and to everyone it was "old junk" that simply brought up sad memories about people dying, dredging up the past sadness when one was trying to get over the grief.  For what?   What's gone is gone- THAT is the attitude

So for a confirmed skeptic like me, it is like Book of Mormon historicty and the BOA etc etc.

We must keep in mind the PRAGMATIC PURPOSE of these beliefs in our lives- that work for the dead is more about OUR needs in many cases than it is for them.  WE need to know who we are- even if we do not know that fully. 

In the scriptures we must learn about the lessons taught as if they are all parables- the truth of parables never changes even when history does

The gospel is not about science and it is not about history- it is about stories which will teach us the principles and bring us closer to our purpose for living itself

I consider myself privileged in such matters because I believe that all history is bunk and science is just a bunch of theories.

Sometimes being a total skeptic can make one about to convert other total skeptics because they see the world in terms of the PURPOSES of belief, regardless of their alleged "truth"

The issue is how we USE these beliefs in our lives and their function.  I take all religious matters as complete parables- not because they ARE parables but because it doesn't matter if they are or not.

I revere my ancestors because they ARE my ancestors regardless of the truth or falsity of the stories.   It is a whole new world of possibilities to see the world that way- to see the FUNCTION of belief and how the belief itself improves life and makes "what really happened" totally fiction anyway- and so we learn our lessons and paradigms and archetypes as just that.

I am free of doubt because I doubt everything and see beliefs for their function in my life, not whether or not they have some fictional or non-fictional "truth".

In all cases.   And I am richer for it, I believe.  But that belief is all that matters. 

I like Sterling McMurrin's statement.  "I cannot be disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place."

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The gospel is not about science and it is not about history- it is about stories which will teach us the principles and bring us closer to our purpose for living itself

You do realize you are going to a ridiculous extreme when you say things like that, don't you?  Next you're probably going to tell me nothing is real or really happened and all that really matters is what we choose to believe, or something like that.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You do realize you are going to a ridiculous extreme when you say things like that, don't you?  Next you're probably going to tell me nothing is real or really happened and all that really matters is what we choose to believe, or something like that.

I can't believe I am actually responding to this same question for the 9 thousandth time. *

Read the Rorty quote in my siggy.   It appears you do not understand it, and I am sorry to say, I am tired of going over this with you and others.  It is very clear.

This is a great summary of the position of contemporary philosophy in general.  It is hardly a ridiculous extreme, and I will actually give you another link, below, to show that.  If you respond with no understanding, I really cannot go on trying to help you understand.  And I just use this language to mirror yours, in your Omniscient Mood.  I know you think you know everything but I differ with that opinion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Some here have understood this and it has changed their lives.   If you understand it, there will no longer be any reason to doubt the alleged "truth claims" of the church.

But instead I fear that your usual response has been something like your quote above, manifesting no understanding of the following words:

Quote

 

5. Deflationism

We began in section 1 with the neo-classical theories, which explained the nature of truth within wider metaphysical systems. We then considered some alternatives in sections 2 and 3, some of which had more modest ontological implications. But we still saw in section 4 that substantial theories of truth tend to imply metaphysical theses, or even embody metaphysical positions.

One long-standing trend in the discussion of truth is to insist that truth really does not carry metaphysical significance at all. It does not, as it has no significance on its own. A number of different ideas have been advanced along these lines, under the general heading of deflationism.

5.1 The redundancy theory

Deflationist ideas appear quite early on, including a well-known argument against correspondence in Frege (1918–19). However, many deflationists take their cue from an idea of Ramsey (1927), often called the equivalence thesis:

┌┌ϕ┐⌜⌜ϕ⌝ is true ┐⌝ has the same meaning as ϕϕ.

(Ramsey himself takes truth-bearers to be propositions rather than sentences. Glanzberg (2003b) questions whether Ramsey’s account of propositions really makes him a deflationist.)

This can be taken as the core of a theory of truth, often called the redundancy theory. The redundancy theory holds that there is no property of truth at all, and appearances of the expression ‘true’ in our sentences are redundant, having no effect on what we express.

The equivalence thesis can also be understood in terms of speech acts rather than meaning:

To assert that ┌ϕ┐⌜ϕ⌝ is true is just to assert that ϕϕ.

This view was advanced by Strawson (1949; 1950), though Strawson also argues that there are other important aspects of speech acts involving ‘true’ beyond what is asserted. For instance, they may be acts of confirming or granting what someone else said. (Strawson would also object to my making sentences the bearers of truth.)

In either its speech act or meaning form, the redundancy theory argues there is no property of truth. It is commonly noted that the equivalence thesis itself is not enough to sustain the redundancy theory. It merely holds that when truth occurs in the outermost position in a sentence, and the full sentence to which truth is predicated is quoted, then truth is eliminable. What happens in other environments is left to be seen. Modern developments of the redundancy theory include Grover et al. (1975).

5.2 Minimalist theories

The equivalence principle looks familiar: it has something like the form of the Tarski biconditionals discussed in section 2.2. However, it is a stronger principle, which identifies the two sides of the biconditional – either their meanings or the speech acts performed with them. The Tarski biconditionals themselves are simply material biconditionals.

A number of deflationary theories look to the Tarski biconditionals rather than the full equivalence principle. Their key idea is that even if we do not insist on redundancy, we may still hold the following theses:

1. For a given language LL and every ϕϕ in LL, the biconditionals ┌┌ϕ┐⌜⌜ϕ⌝ is true if and only if ϕ┐ϕ⌝ hold by definition (or analytically, or trivially, or by stipulation …).
2. This is all there is to say about the concept of truth.

We will refer to views which adopt these as minimalist. Officially, this is the name of the view of Horwich (1990), but we will apply it somewhat more widely. (Horwich’s view differs in some specific respects from what is presented here, such as predicating truth of propositions, but we believe it is close enough to what is sketched here to justify the name.)

The second thesis, that the Tarski biconditionals are all there is to say about truth, captures something similar to the redundancy theory’s view. It comes near to saying that truth is not a property at all; to the extent that truth is a property, there is no more to it than the disquotational pattern of the Tarski biconditionals. As Horwich puts it, there is no substantial underlying metaphysics to truth. And as Soames (1984) stresses, certainly nothing that could ground as far-reaching a view as realism or anti-realism.

5.3 Other aspects of deflationism

If there is no property of truth, or no substantial property of truth, what role does our term ‘true’ play? Deflationists typically note that the truth predicate provides us with a convenient device of disquotation. Such a device allows us to make some useful claims which we could not formulate otherwise, such as the blind ascription ‘The next thing that Bill says will be true’. (For more on blind ascriptions and their relation to deflationism, see Azzouni, 2001.) A predicate obeying the Tarski biconditionals can also be used to express what would otherwise be (potentially) infinite conjunctions or disjunctions, such as the notorious statement of Papal infallibility put ‘Everything the Pope says is true’. (Suggestions like this are found in Leeds, 1978 and Quine, 1970.)

Recognizing these uses for a truth predicate, we might simply think of it as introduced into a language by stipulation. The Tarski biconditionals themselves might be stipulated, as the minimalists envisage. One could also construe the clauses of a recursive Tarskian theory as stipulated. (There are some significant logical differences between these two options. See Halbach (1999) and Ketland (1999) for discussion.) Other deflationists, such as Beall (2005) or Field (1994), might prefer to focus here on rules of inference or rules of use, rather than the Tarski biconditionals themselves.

There are also important connections between deflationist ideas about truth and certain ideas about meaning. These are fundamental to the deflationism of Field (1986; 1994), which will be discussed in section 6.3. For an insightful critique of deflationism, see Gupta (1993).

For more on deflationism, see Azzouni (2018) and the entry on the deflationary theory of truth.

6. Truth and language

One of the important themes in the literature on truth is its connection to meaning, or more generally, to language. This has proved an important application of ideas about truth, and an important issue in the study of truth itself. This section will consider a number of issues relating truth and language.

 

 

 

And so the article continues- and I am sure you will find it fascinating.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS ENCAPSULATED in the Rorty quote in straightforward English- and that is why I use it.

I will not answer your next response unless it show some further understanding.   Simply ridiculing 2000 years of Western philosophy doesn't help your credibility.

Sorry- I just do not have the time for nine thousand and one.*

Easy English- Rorty quote in a different color, :

 

Quote

 

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you think you know everything...

Thank you again for showing me that what you know or claim to know is wrong and not true even though you claim it is.  Philosophers such as yourself seem to do that a lot. 

In this instance what you say you know that I know is not what I know or think or claim to know, and yet here you are saying it as if I have never tried to straighten you out on your misperception before, which I have, numerous times.

And if you really wanted to get down to what I disagree with in your perception of reality then we could cut through a lot of this philosophical mumbo jumbo by simply focusing on a discussion of metaphysics, with perhaps some examples.

Because your perception of metaphysics is at the crux of what all of this philosophical mumbo jumbo is about.

A posited reality outside of human sense perception concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses... as if any such thing exists.

Or maybe this is about or also involves a misunderstanding of the words each of us use when we try to explain and describe to each other exactly what we are thinking.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Ahab

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps you don't really understand where Hawking was coming from when he said that?  He's pointed out, as far as we can see back, the universe was like the quantum elements as it started, "The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature".  All because at one time the universe was the size of subatomic particles, like electrons and protons that seemingly appear out of nowhere, they disappear and pop back up in a different location.  Is it waves or particles.  Anyway, interesting stuff.  The God proposition is really just a bad argument that for the most part, doesn't have much of a grasp on reality, what is going on, and the laws of, yes we guessed it, science.  

I'm quite familiar with this. I love Hawking; he was a brilliant physicist. But the ultimate arbiter of the ultimate cosmology he is not.

And the godless proposition is really just a bad argument for the most part.

I cheerfully admit that God is not falsifiable. So what? The absence of God is likewise not falsifiable. You and Hawking prefer that it's all random chance, with no Cause. Your preferences however do not constitute a law of the universe.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Remember to edit you need to go to the post and look for 3 dots it will bring up a mini menu and should have the edit function.  

I believe those on Limited cannot edit their posts, and I think it's been that way for a long time. 

[Stargazer]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Thank you again for showing me that what you know or claim to know is wrong and not true even though you claim it is.  Philosophers such as yourself seem to do that a lot. 

In this instance what you say you know that I know is not what I know or think or claim to know, and yet here you are saying it as if I have never tried to straighten you out on your misperception before, which I have, numerous times.

And if you really wanted to get down to what I disagree with in your perception of reality then we could cut through a lot of this philosophical mumbo jumbo by simply focusing on a discussion of metaphysics, with perhaps some examples.

Because your perception of metaphysics is at the crux of what all of this philosophical mumbo jumbo is about.

A posited reality outside of human sense perception concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses... as if any such thing exists.

Or maybe this is about or also involves a misunderstanding of the words each of us use when we try to explain and describe to each other exactly what we are thinking.

Jeez Ahab! Stop trying to argue with philosophers about philosophy. Be like me: just accept that you're not going to "get it", and drive on. That's what I do.