Re: 'Eh?'
Girlfriend, by using the phrase “a matter of principle,” you imply a moral framework from which that principle was derived. Sounds like a moral claim to me. Hope you’re OK with the whole girlfriend thing btw. I’m experimenting with more intimate forms of address. You may reciprocate if you wish.

To brand any question a "non-question" simply because you believe it will not “admit of a satisfactory answer” is just weak, weak, weak, honey. Satisfaction is in the heart, mind and eye of the beholder. Unless of course by satisfactory you mean accurate to the point of standing up to remorseless scientific scrutiny, in which case you might as well write off all but the most simplistic and utilitarian philosophic enquiry as pointless navel-gazing. There’ll never be consensus on the matter. For every Aquinas who finds meaning in a search for God there’s a Sartre who doesn’t.

I mentioned Kaku because he’s an example of an individual at the cutting edge of scientific enquiry, which you cite as doing a good job of explaining the universe, who would absolutely refute your/Hume’s argument. He finds reason to believe in a creator; it inspires and informs his work. And, treasure, I don’t think metaphysics is reducible to physics but you know as well as I do that, at the quantum level at least, the two have unavoidably overlapped for the best part of a century.

As for Meister Eckhart, he’s only a mediaevalist in the sense that he happened to be born in the middle ages. He also happens to be a personal hero of mine. I suggested you read him because I wanted to give you another dose of nauseating hippy crap. Here, try this: “All God wants of man is a peaceful heart.”

I read your posts and I wonder whether they stem from sheer intellectual vanity or from a genuine desire to engage and enlighten. I mean, what’s behind all the posturing? Your heart seems far from peaceful. Can we put you on the couch, sweetie?
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 13:04, Reply)