Archived

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Read 20601 times

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2010, 01:47:29 pm »
I do not accept the materialist position that if a search for plausible alternate explanations fails then no matter how credible and plausible the witnesses are they must be deluded or lying. That approach simply begs the question.


How does that beg the question ?  If someone claims to have seen a dragon, are we to believe then because they are credible people ?

I am not saying that we should say that they are deluded or lying, but I would say that we should reserve judgment until the claim can be better supported.

1

OrdinaryClay

  • ***
  • 4797 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2010, 04:28:56 pm »

Cryptozoology is subject to the full rigor if science. I was talking about supernatural events. To see a Dragon would be to make a claim subject to scientific scrutiny only. It is a natural claim not a supernatural claim.

Regarding testimony, I said ...

OrdinaryClay wrote:
All such testimony should be subject to the normal scrutiny of testimony. The usual tests should be applied: credibility, consistency, corroboration and of course a search for plausible alternate explanations must be made. Still it must be taken into account that supernatural events are not empirically reproducible as the instigators of such events are free willed non-human minds.


"Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.(Luk 13:24)
So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?(Gal 4:16)

2

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2010, 06:12:16 pm »
OK, what if someone who is credible claims to have died yesterday and come back to life this morning? Are we to believe then simply because they are credible ?

( I thought you would have gotten my point, but I am more then happy to rephrase for you).

You also said this:

I do not accept the materialist position that if a search for plausible alternate explanations fails then no matter how credible and plausible the witnesses are they must be deluded or lying. That approach simply begs the question.

According to this, you believe that if there can be no plausible alternate explanation found, and the source is credible, then you should believe their story ?  

If there is no evidence for their story, shouldn't you just say, I don't know what it was, rather then believe the option you were given, because there currently are no other explanations ?

If I were to make a hypothesis about something, my hypothesis is not automatically correct if there are no other hypotheses, i must show that mine is true.


3

OrdinaryClay

  • ***
  • 4797 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2010, 08:16:24 pm »
jbiemans wrote: OK, what if someone who is credible claims to have died yesterday and come back to life this morning? Are we to believe then simply because they are credible ?

( I thought you would have gotten my point, but I am more then happy to rephrase for you).

You also said this:

I do not accept the materialist position that if a search for plausible alternate explanations fails then no matter how credible and plausible the witnesses are they must be deluded or lying. That approach simply begs the question.

According to this, you believe that if there can be no plausible alternate explanation found, and the source is credible, then you should believe their story ?  

If there is no evidence for their story, shouldn't you just say, I don't know what it was, rather then believe the option you were given, because there currently are no other explanations ?

If I were to make a hypothesis about something, my hypothesis is not automatically correct if there are no other hypotheses, i must show that mine is true.


Let's look at this as it would play out in real life.

First, if you start by assuming that a supernatural explanation is not possible, if you make this assumption simply by fiat, then we have nothing more to discuss because you are simply asserting materialism based on faith. You are begging the question with regard to the existence of the supernatural. If you allow the supernatural as a possible explanation then this becomes a non-privileged possibility at the beginning. Nothing more. Just a possibility.

If we had a person who claimed to have a supernatural experience we should approach the evidence as follows:
1) Is the claimant ...
   a) of known mental stability.
   b) known to have a truthful character . Are they of particular standing in the community.
   c) in a position to benefit from, or suffer consequences from, making such a claim. How do these compare. If a claimant could stand to loose face and standing in the community from making such claims this should be taken into account just as any benefit would.
   d) affected radically by the claim. Has their life changed drastically. This is clear evidence they genuinely believe such an event happened.
2) Are there other witnesses to the event. If so, they should be subjected to the same rigor as the original

This type of witness testimony collectively can be very, very good evidence. It is cumulative. If all you have is 1.c) then this is not very good. The more you have the more convincing the evidence becomes. This is blatant common sense. It is almost silly we have to go through it. If we are able to check out the plausible natural explanations and they just don't seem possible then the supernatural is a rational explanation. I don't know is valid if you were not able to check out a plausible explanation. I don't know is not a valid conclusion if you know all natural explanations are simply not plausible.

A proof by contradiction is a legitimate form of proof. An exclusion of all alternate possibilities is a legitimate form of evidence.

"Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.(Luk 13:24)
So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?(Gal 4:16)

4

John Quin

  • **
  • 985 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2010, 08:19:03 pm »
jbiemans wrote: OK, what if someone who is credible claims to have died yesterday and come back to life this morning? Are we to believe then simply because they are credible ?

( I thought you would have gotten my point, but I am more then happy to rephrase for you).

You also said this:

I do not accept the materialist position that if a search for plausible alternate explanations fails then no matter how credible and plausible the witnesses are they must be deluded or lying. That approach simply begs the question.

According to this, you believe that if there can be no plausible alternate explanation found, and the source is credible, then you should believe their story ?  

If there is no evidence for their story, shouldn't you just say, I don't know what it was, rather then believe the option you were given, because there currently are no other explanations ?

If I were to make a hypothesis about something, my hypothesis is not automatically correct if there are no other hypotheses, i must show that mine is true.


 

Aren't you falling into the trap of making naturalism the default position? It will never be possible for the sciences to access miracles so you will never have 'evidence'. It is not repeatable or testable. If it were repeatable and testable then science would say that it is a phenomenon with no current natural explanation. But they wouldn't call it a miracle.
Doesn't there come a point where a miracle is a more rational explanation than a natural phenomenon. If you never accept that a miracle is possible then it seems that you are just presupposing that naturalism is correct.

 
--
What abiogenesis needs is a form of life so simple that even Stanley Miller could create it.

5

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2010, 01:16:55 pm »
Aren't you falling into the trap of making naturalism the default position? It will never be possible for the sciences to access miracles so you will never have 'evidence'.

Did it effect the physical world ? Then it is in the domain that science can find evidence.  If God performed a miracle (did something that defy natural law), then there will be evidence of that.  It may not be repeatable, but it will still be observable.

Doesn't there come a point where a miracle is a more rational explanation than a natural phenomenon.

Why should it be the case where the more rational explanation is that something undetectable intervened and suspended the laws of nature that are in effect remainder of the time.

If It was demonstrated that God, in fact does exist, then supposing miracles, would not be out of the question.  How can you suppose miracles though without proving God first ?  

To me that is like saying that rainbows are caused by the leprechaun's pot of Gold.  According to you, if I did not have a natural explanation for rainbows, why shouldn't I accept that premise ?

Or maybe a simpler one.  You see a cow lying dead in the field.  You see no sign of foul play and an autopsy does not show anything suspecious.  Your Good friend, who is always honest and trustworthy tells you that an alien space craft came down and killed the cow, then flew away.

Do you believe him ?

[QUOTE]If you never accept that a miracle is possible then it seems that you are just presupposing that naturalism is correct.[/QUOTE]

What if I said that you are presupposing that miracles can actually happen.


6

John Quin

  • **
  • 985 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2010, 08:00:44 pm »
 

Did it effect the physical world ? Then it is in the domain that science can find evidence.  If God performed a miracle (did something that defy natural law), then there will be evidence of that.  It may not be repeatable, but it will still be observable.

 

 

 

If something like a video camera was there to capture the event then yes there could be evidence. However due to the nature of the way science of often performed the evidence would be highly disputed and eventually rejected due to the fact that it was not repeatable. Possibly it is more relevant to how History would deal with the event that how science would deal with it.

 

 

 

Why should it be the case where the more rational explanation is that something undetectable intervened and suspended the laws of nature that are in effect remainder of the time.

 

 

 

Regarding miracles it becomes more an issue of how much evidence do you need before you believe that a miracle is the best explanation? For the resurrection of Christ the historical evidence rivals that of other historical events i.e. it is the best that can be expected for that point in time.

 

 

If It was demonstrated that God, in fact does exist, then supposing miracles, would not be out of the question.  How can you suppose miracles though without proving God first ?  

 

 

 

The whole area of metaphysics and the death of logical positivism should put a dampener on the notion that you need to prove something before you can believe that it is the best explanation. As far as providing rational reasons to believe that God exists then you are presented with at least three strong arguments on this site.

 

 

To me that is like saying that rainbows are caused by the leprechaun's pot of Gold.  According to you, if I did not have a natural explanation for rainbows, why shouldn't I accept that premise ?

 

 

 

I understand the desire to use analogies but in effect you are caricaturing the argument. No one is saying that pots of Gold are the best explanation for rainbows.

 

 

Or maybe a simpler one.  You see a cow lying dead in the field.  You see no sign of foul play and an autopsy does not show anything suspecious.  Your Good friend, who is always honest and trustworthy tells you that an alien space craft came down and killed the cow, then flew away.

 

 

 Do you believe him ?

 

 

 

I think to a certain degree we have already covered this.

 

 

 

What if I said that you are presupposing that miracles can actually happen.

 

 

 

 

Yes I am presupposing that miracles can actually happen and yes I am presupposing that natural phenomena do exist. But I am not presupposing naturalism (a position that states that ALL phenomena are the result of naturalistic processes) nor am I presupposing a hypothetical miraclism where ALL phenomena are the result of miracles and I disallow for the fact that a natural processes provides the best explanation.

 

 

In effect you need to accept that someone is rational to believe in something if it presents the best explanation and realise that disallowing the existence of the supernatural as a possible explanation is a position of faith.

--
What abiogenesis needs is a form of life so simple that even Stanley Miller could create it.

7

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2010, 05:21:54 am »
Regarding miracles it becomes more an issue of how much evidence do you need before you believe that a miracle is the best explanation? For the resurrection of Christ the historical evidence rivals that of other historical events i.e. it is the best that can be expected for that point in time.

No other historic events have miracles.  If any of them did, then I would not believe those claims either.

If something like a video camera was there to capture the event then yes there could be evidence. However due to the nature of the way science of often performed the evidence would be highly disputed and eventually rejected due to the fact that it was not repeatable. Possibly it is more relevant to how History would deal with the event that how science would deal with it.

There are other forms of evidence besides eye witness.  Look at the job of CSI, no one sees the crime happen, but they have to investigate the evidence left behind to determine what happened.

I understand the desire to use analogies but in effect you are caricaturing the argument. No one is saying that pots of Gold are the best explanation for rainbows.

I just was.  Is it now part of the criteria that I must have many people believe it with me ?

I think to a certain degree we have already covered this.

No we have not, and you ignored the question.  If credible people claim to have seen or been abducted by aliens, should we believe them ?

8

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2010, 06:01:00 am »
if you make this assumption simply by fiat, then we have nothing more to discuss because you are simply asserting materialism based on faith

I am not asserting anything on faith, I am making assertions based on observable evidence.

A proof by contradiction is a legitimate form of proof. An exclusion of all alternate possibilities is a legitimate form of evidence.

You  have to exclude All possible options, otherwise it is a false dichotomy.

Proof by contradiction is a legitimate form of argument.

If you are to choose between 2 options:

1) I don't know.
2) Supernatural explanation, that cannot be explained, or verified.

Which of those is the more plausible answer ?

This type of witness testimony collectively can be very, very good evidence. It is cumulative. If all you have is 1.c) then this is not very good. The more you have the more convincing the evidence becomes.

This is true, if you have many people confirming the exact same story.  You will find that this is not the case though.  Even the gospels cannot agree on the details of events.

9

John Quin

  • **
  • 985 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2010, 09:38:06 am »

No other historic events have miracles.  If any of them did,  then I would not believe those claims either.


So why  isn't this statement question begging? Again you are presupposing  naturalism is correct and then using this faith based position to  disallow any other explanation other than ones that fit with that view.  I'm not sure how you can rationally justify this position.


There  are other forms of evidence besides eye witness.  Look at the job of  CSI, no one sees the crime happen, but they have to investigate the  evidence left behind to determine what happened.


As far as the CSI is concerned yes they do use proven and repeatable scientific methods to determine what natural processes occurred in the crime. There is no reason to believe that human crime involves any miracles and they do not constitute the most reasonable explanation. I am curious however as to what forensic evidence you would expect to see if a miracle did occur.  



I just was.  Is it now part of the criteria that I must  have many people believe it with me ?


Oh well I'm not  sure what you think that assertion will buy you. There is a very good  naturalistic explanation for the existence of rainbows. If fact it is  the most reasonable explanation so we should accept. To do otherwise  would be to resort to my earlier hypothetical position of presupposing  miraclism.



No we have not, and you ignored the  question.  If credible people claim to have seen or been abducted by  aliens, should we believe them ?


Oh I'm sorry it seemed  to me as though it has been covered. Lets try again. We should accept  the most reasonable explanation for and event, and that includes the the  possibly of the supernatural. As far as being abducted by aliens this  does not represent an example of the supernatural. However lets proceed.  If a few people claim to be abducted akin to the current abduction  claims then I think the more reasonable explanation is that they are  suffering a mental illness or experience a rare natural phenomena that  they could not explain. If by contrast a town of 500 people all claim to  have been abducted at the same time and have detailed collaborating  stories it would be much harder to dismiss and you should not think that  someone is irrational if they did not dismiss the incident out of hand.
Now  consider that 50,000 people claim to have been abducted then it would  seem reasonable that the best explanation is that the people had been  actually had an experience consistent with our view of alien abduction.

But  all that said and done I'm not sure you have ever addressed the issue  of presupposing naturalism. It's kind of the key point here.

Do  you accept that you are presupposing naturalism?

Are you familiar  with logical positivism, and do you agree with logical positivism?


--
What abiogenesis needs is a form of life so simple that even Stanley Miller could create it.

10

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2010, 01:30:36 pm »
So why isn't this statement question begging?

Its not question begging because the burden of proof for the claims has not been met.

If you make a claim that a miracle has happened, it is up to you to prove it.  Witness testimony is not enough, as it is demonstrated that we are horrible at remembering details of events.

I am curious however as to what forensic evidence you would expect to see if a miracle did occur.

If a miracle did in fact happen, it would have had to effect something in the natural world.  That would mean that the cause would have to be detectable by the natural world (or it could not have had an effect).  If we came to a point in our discovery, where there was no possible natural explanation, yet there was definitive proof that the effect did occur, then it would be reason to concider a super natural explanation.

However, if there is even one possible natural explanation, it is always more plausible then the supernatural one, because supernatural things have not been demonstrated.

Now that I think about it some more, what does the term "supernatural" actually mean ?  Is there anything out there that is not natural? ( I am not asserting, I am asking).  Is there anything that we have experience in everyday life that is supernatural ? Maybe not every day life, but any think in general that is purported to be supernatural ?

To me that is like saying that rainbows are caused by the leprechaun's pot of Gold.  According to you, if I did not have a natural explanation for rainbows, why shouldn't I accept that premise ?

Oh well I'm not sure what you think that assertion will buy you. There is a very good naturalistic explanation for the existence of rainbows. If fact it is the most reasonable explanation so we should accept. To do otherwise would be to resort to my earlier hypothetical position of presupposing miraclism.

So now that I have made that clear (hopefully), would it be reasonable for me to accept the leprechaun hypothesis, if there were no competing hypothesis ? (especially considering the fact that no one has ever seen or experienced leprechauns)

Actually I have a really good one for you:

I have personally seen Chris Angel do some crazy magic that I have no idea how he possibly could have done.  Is it reasonable for me to assume that he actually has magical powers ? (given that I have no other answers ?) Or would it be more reasonable for me to say "I don't know how he did it, but I would really love to find out!"

If a few people clai
   m to be abducted akin to the current abduction claims then I think the more reasonable explanation is that they are suffering a mental illness or experience a rare natural phenomena that they could not explain. If by contrast a town of 500 people all claim to have been abducted at the same time and have detailed collaborating stories it would be much harder to dismiss and you should not think that someone is irrational if they did not dismiss the incident out of hand.
Now consider that 50,000 people claim to have been abducted then it would seem reasonable that the best explanation is that the people had been actually had an experience consistent with our view of alien abduction.

Well the people that claim to be abducted by aliens probably is into the thousands easly by now.  Does that make their story more plausible ?

What is there were only around 2-6 accounts of a flying saucer hovering over a city.  These accounts claim that more then 500 people from the city came out to see the spectacle.  Did I forget to say that the accounts were written by the local UFO club, who also claims to have spoken to the aliens.

Should we believe their claims, based on the accounts alone ?

Do you accept that you are presupposing naturalism?

I will have to look into the definitions more to tell you for sure.  What I would say though, is this:

To demonstrate a miracle did occur, you would require more then a verbal, or written account.

Are you familiar with logical positivism, and do you agree with logical positivism?

I am not familiar with it, but it does sound interesting with some of the quick reading I did on it.  I think my view would be a little different then that though.  I think I am more of an objectivist, but I still have to look in to the terms to see exactly where my opinions fit.

I do not like to label myself or my views, but I rather like to just be who I am.  I usually find that I do not fit neatly into any single category.  (which is why, if I were religious, that I couldn't really be a member of any particular sect.)

11

John Quin

  • **
  • 985 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #26 on: July 30, 2010, 03:25:59 am »
jbiemans wrote:
So why isn't this statement question begging?


Its not question begging because the burden of proof for the claims has not been met.

If you make a claim that a miracle has happened, it is up to you to prove it.  Witness testimony is not enough, as it is demonstrated that we are horrible at remembering details of events.



You are begging a question if you claim that miracles are impossible and then saying that someone has not met a burned of proof. Up until now that has been your claim ie the supernatural does not exist.
If you modified your claim to say that miracles are possible but that you personally have a high evidentiary threshold then that would be different. In fact if you were to have a very high threshold it could exceed the level that history could provide. In which case your original statement that you would not believe any historical events involving a miracle would not be presupposing naturalism. However all other statements you have made seem to indicate that you do not believe that the supernatural exists and so in that case you would be rejecting historical miracles based on the presupposition of naturalism.



I'd be happy to proceed with discussing the rest of the points but if you continue to presuppose naturalism without recognizing or acknowledging the fact then it will be fairly pointless.

Without trying to sound too condescending you might want to look at issue surrounding the collapse of logical positivism in the field of philosophy and the problems caused by metaphysics to anyone who claims to only believe in something if some burden of proof has been met.

Respectfully
John
--
What abiogenesis needs is a form of life so simple that even Stanley Miller could create it.

12

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #27 on: July 30, 2010, 08:55:05 am »
It took me a while to trace back the quotes here:

Quote:
Doesn't there come a point where a miracle is a more rational explanation than a natural phenomenon.

Me:
Why should it be the case where the more rational explanation is that something undetectable intervened and suspended the laws of nature that are in effect remainder of the time.

Regarding miracles it becomes more an issue of how much evidence do you need before you believe that a miracle is the best explanation? For the resurrection of Christ the historical evidence rivals that of other historical events i.e. it is the best that can be expected for that point in time.

Me:

No other historic events have miracles.  If any of them did, then I would not believe those claims either.

So why isn't this statement question begging? Again you are presupposing naturalism is correct and then using this faith based position to disallow any other explanation other than ones that fit with that view. I'm not sure how you can rationally justify this position.

Me:

Its not question begging because the burden of proof for the claims has not been met.

You are begging a question if you claim that miracles are impossible and then saying that someone has not met a burned of proof. Up until now that has been your claim ie the supernatural does not exist.

If you modified your claim to say that miracles are possible but that you personally have a high evidentiary threshold then that would be different.

Now where there did I say that miracles are impossible ?

In fact if you were to have a very high threshold it could exceed the level that history could provide. In which case your original statement that you would not believe any historical events involving a miracle would not be presupposing naturalism.

See the bold quote above. ( I did say that I don't believe them)

I did make claims questioning the validity of what supernatural actually means, and the usefulness of the term.  

Also, you do not have to have a "very high" threshold to exceed the level that history can provide.  History is something that is written by the victors, and there is good reason to reject a lot of it unless substantiated.  It is impossible for historical standards to validate a miracle though.  If a miracle did happen, it would require more then a historical standard to demonstrate that it did.

problems caused by metaphysics to anyone who claims to only believe in something if some burden of proof has been met.

I will look into it in the future, but are you actually saying that there are problems with believing in things if the burden of proof has not been met ?  That you should believe things even if the burden of proof has not been met ?????

So I hope that clears it up, so what about the examples given in my last post ?


13

John Quin

  • **
  • 985 Posts
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2010, 07:52:08 am »

....First, if you start by assuming that a supernatural explanation is not possible, if you make this assumption simply by fiat, then we have nothing more to discuss because you are simply asserting materialism based on faith. You are begging the question with regard to the existence of the supernatural.....


Right so this quote above from OrdinaryClay should have already alerted you to what was being spoken about regarding presupposition of naturalism. While the exact wording of your posts can allow theoretically for the possibility of a misunderstanding it seemed very likely that you were presupposing naturalism. (Sorry not trying to be insulting)

However lets proceed with the notion that you do allow for the existence of the supernatural but you require empirical proof before you are willing to accept it.

This might seem to be a safe position however it can not be a very good position when dealing with knowledge in general. As previously mentioned we all hold to certain metaphysical truths without ANY burden of proof being met.

A dumbed down version of some metaphysical truths are as follows:
1) The external world is real and we are not all trapped inside something like "The matrix"
2) That there are other minds besides our own and the belief that other people exist isn't a byproduct of our own minds
3) That the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age
4) That we have the power of free will

We all have beliefs on all of these questions and there is no empirical evidence to help us.

In effect to ask for empirical evidence before you can believe in something is verificationism and in the world of philosophy it has collapsed. Reasons for this include Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the very fact that the statement
"All statements must met a burden of proof before they can be believed" is self refuting. ie there is no proof to believe such a statement.

So in fact the notion of simply requiring evidence before believing in something is basically a byproduct of our reliance on science and ignorance of the metaphysical truths that we take for granted.

It might seem then that in the absence of proof simply anything could be true. In fact that is something like the idea but more productively you should be willing to accept that you are reasonable to believe that something is true if it is the best explanation.

So while we seem to have mostly focused on miracles this is a thread about LCA. In the same way that you would be more willing to believe in Alien abductions if it were know that Aliens with spaceships did live on Mars, you would also be more likely to believe in miracles if it was KNOWN that there is a God. Now I can't provide you with proof of God, but as with many of the other arguments for the existence of God, God presents the best explanation.

I haven't forgotten the other examples but covering the issue of verificationism/logical positivism is a bit of a prerequisite as far as I can see.  


--
What abiogenesis needs is a form of life so simple that even Stanley Miller could create it.

14

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Counter Argument to LCA
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2010, 07:36:08 pm »
This might seem to be a safe position however it can not be a very good position when dealing with knowledge in general. As previously mentioned we all hold to certain metaphysical truths without ANY burden of proof being met.

A dumbed down version of some metaphysical truths are as follows:
1) The external world is real and we are not all trapped inside something like "The matrix"
2) That there are other minds besides our own and the belief that other people exist isn't a byproduct of our own minds
3) That the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age
4) That we have the power of free will

You are essentially correct here, however, the first 3 are pretty much the same premise.  4 is not something that you actually must believe in though, some people (I sort of lean this way) are determininsts.  If you were to deny your point 1 then you would be a solipsist.  With a mind set like that, there is no point in trying to learn anything, because it is all useless.  So you are right, there are a few basic things that should be accepted as properly basic in order for us to function, and learn, but that set should be kept to as small as possible, ie: the external world actually exists.

That is really the only thing that you would require to be properly basic in order to begin the discussion.  I do realize that things do not only require empirical evidence, but sometimes argument is sufficient, however, whenever we are talking about things in the actual world, we always use empirical evidence.

Can you name anything at all, that actually exists that you only have a philosophical argument for ?

Are there extraordinary events where you would simply accept a witnesses testimony ?

What about this example:
What [if] there were only around 2-6 accounts of a flying saucer hovering over a city.  These accounts claim that more then 500 people from the city came out to see the spectacle.  Did I forget to say that the accounts were written by the local UFO club, who also claims to have spoken to the aliens.

Should we believe their claims, based on the accounts alone ?

"All statements must met a burden of proof before they can be believed" is self refuting. ie there is no proof to believe such a statement.

Actually there is reason to believe that statement is true.  Its burden of proof has been met.  Given various scenarios, believing a statement only after it has met a burden of proof, gives you the best chance of holding the least amount of false beliefs.  If you do not care if you hold false beliefs, then I guess that is your prerogative.  I however do case if what I hold to be true, is actually true, and it is because of that reason that I will reserve judgment, until the burden of proof has actually been met.

I am sure that you operate your life in this manner for most of it, but make exceptions for various beliefs.  If someone told you that they would sell you brand new 2010 mustang for 10$, I am sure that you would be skeptical of this claim.

I am not asking for outright denial of ideas, but I am however asking for skepticism, until a statement has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.  I do understand that what constitutes a reasonable doubt is subjective, and therefore the criteria is arbitrary, but under this view, one can at least be internally consistent, if they hold all views to the same standard of reason.

It might seem then that in the absence of proof simply anything could be true. In fact that is something like the idea but more productively you should be willing to accept that you are reasonable to believe that something is true if it is the best explanation.
   >
Yes and no.  I can make up all kinds of explanations for things that may actually seem better then the actual explanations.  I guess it comes down to how you determine "best explanation".  To me the best explanation is the one that is backed by evidence.

One example I have heard is this:

I propose a hypothesis that there are sub atomic gremlins that exist within atoms, and it is these gremlins that are responsible for maintaining the nuclear force of the atom, holding it together.  I could define these gremlins to explain all the observed facts about atomic nature.

Does that mean that my gremlin hypothesis should be believed ? (If we had no other theories ?)

That, unfortunately is not how it works, nor should it be.  We never say, I have explanation and even though I can not demonstrate that my explanation is true, it should be believed because there are no other explanations.

In the same way that you would be more willing to believe in Alien abductions if it were know that Aliens with spaceships did live on Mars, you would also be more likely to believe in miracles if it was KNOWN that there is a God. Now I can't provide you with proof of God, but as with many of the other arguments for the existence of God, God presents the best explanation.

You are right, I would be more likely to believe in miracles if it was KNOWN that God existed.  But I disagree that God is the best explanation, as it has not been shown that God exists.  How can something be the best explanation if it is itself in question.