Supposition is defined as an uncertain belief. Therefore, there not being a reason for things or a why would be just as much of a supposition as if I were to say that there is.

There being no why or reason for things is worthy of the same amount of burden of evidence/explanation for if I were to say the opposite. And to say there isn’t a reason or a why for things wouldn’t/shouldn’t make anything being a supposition not worthy of ones consideration just because anything born from an is or an isn’t can be considered as supposition based off metaphysical assumptions.

So you’re saying scientific theory is not worth the time and energy to even consider? Scientific theory being based off metaphysical assumptions. If so, you’re saying The Big Bang wasn’t worth not only the time and effort to think up in the first place, but not even worthy of anyone’s consideration?

  • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    8 days ago

    Ik this is about me, so I’m gonna let others respond, but I thought I’d rewrite this for you so it’s easier to follow.

    Supposition refers to an uncertain belief. This means that claiming there is no reason or explanation for things is just as much a supposition as asserting that there is a reason.

    When we say that there is no “why” or reason behind events, we carry the same burden of evidence and explanation as when we argue the opposite. Thus, stating that there is no reason for things does not diminish the validity of any supposition. Both positions—whether something exists or does not exist—can be seen as based on metaphysical assumptions.

    Otherwise, would you not also suggest that scientific theories aren’t worth our time and energy to consider? If scientific theories are indeed rooted in metaphysical assumptions, does that mean concepts like the Big Bang theory are not worthy of our attention or contemplation?