Materialists Know What They Say is False. They Say it Anyway

_{Barry Arrington
January 21, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Otherwise, they would have to give up their materialism.

Recently I posted about a woman who was charged with attempted murder when she put a newborn baby in a garbage bag and tossed him in a dumpster to die. Here is an exchange I had with Seversky regarding that post:

Barry:

Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so?

Seversky:

the overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil

Barry:

Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?

Seversky:

Presumably, it would be good in the minds of the majority who approved of it. It would not be a good thing from my perspective.

There you have it. Sev’s position is this: They would prefer tossing babies in dumpsters and I would not. There is no basis on which to determine which preference is superior. Therefore, the preferences are objectively equal.

As I have said before, no sane person actually lives their life as if materialism is true. But Sev’s religious commitments compel him to pretend he believes it is true. Which leads him to say that he holds an outrageous position that we can be certain he does not truly hold. Sad that.

Comments

VL, communicable does not here mean the other will have the same experience, but this is an era of communication technologies that successfully transmit meaningful messages that are effective. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST}

Ram, I think you will find that Q has put on the table a video discussion that addresses a specific text that is pivotal. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST}

Querius: why not go back to the OP or how about answering some of the questions raised? I'm not an atheist nor a materialist. --Ramram_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PST}

KF writes something I mostly agree with:
once something is the case, it is real. If it is a first person experience, it is self authenticating as an experience, which is an internally accessible fact in the sense of a state of affairs knowable to that person and possibly communicable to others. As a sidebar, it is also a manifestation of self awareness, which is so communicable.
However, the experience itself is not directly communicable: we can communicate about the experience, but we can't directly give others access to our internal experience. But in general I agree with what you wrote. And then you bring up math. However, we are not talking about math. We are talking about the phenomena in general, and in general the judgments, opinions, beliefs, etc. that are part of our self-awareness (awareness of our self) are the object of our internal experience and do not transcend ourself. Their existence is internal only. As said before, we are both the subject doing the experiencing and the object of the experience. (By the way, coming to terms with the mystery of this process of "looking at ourself" is one of the issues addressed in meditative practices in many religions.)Viola Lee_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

Querius: I could tell you, but your head would explode. It has to do with why ancient Jewish scholars believed in two messiahs. Let’s leave it at that. And yes, I study the Tanakh: Masoretic, Septuagint, occasionally the Syriac Peshitta, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. As a Jew, I am well aware of speculations in this regard. And you are full of malarky. Point to evidence where the Davidic Messiah is a sin-bearer. You can't. --Ram the Jewram_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST}

LCD @180, Isaiah 53 makes no mention of the Davidic Messiah. Care to point to a verse in Isaiah 53 that you think does? --Ramram_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST}

VL, you make your decision, also note that from 86 on I have pointed out specific misrepresentations in your thought and associated objections. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

VL, once something is the case, it is real. If it is a first person experience, it is self authenticating as an experience, which is an internally accessible fact in the sense of a state of affairs knowable to that person and possibly communicable to others. As a sidebar, it is also a manifestation of self awareness, which is so communicable. If it so happens that the piece of experience is say: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . {0,1,2 . . .} --> w, thence, N,Z,Q,R,CR* etc, we have a communicable warranted experience that is the first step to the study of the logic of structure and quantity. This topic is inherently abstract, is contemplated and warranted rationally [note the Godel issues . . .] and is objective, generally knowable. Of course, there are mathematical errors, which are guarded against through elaborate processes. The attempt to undermine the importance of distinguishing subjectivity and objectivity fails. And from the beginning, Mathematics as manifestly objective but about abstracta has been focal to my thoughts. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PST}

To KF at 209. I can assure you that I am not "genuinely perplexed", so your links aren't relevant.Viola Lee_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

At 208, KF writes, "There is no transcending of the first person." KF disagrees with Stephen. For the record.Viola Lee_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

F/N: We can see how this thread spins itself into precisely the pointless, polarising exchange not balanced by truly expert counsels warned against, and a topic not proper to this blog. The truly perplexed are advised to go where there are panels of experts able to address at a suitable level, and links were already given. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST}

WJM, loaded language again, and of course an appeal to duty to justice by one who has tried to object to and dismiss those first duties and their branch on which we sit character. That already tells us much on the quality of reasoning. I have already pointed to two links for those who are genuinely perplexed, as a start point for dealing with the matter in more appropriate fora. As for, in your opinion, giving a soul that has habitually chosen separation from God what it desires and persists in is an act of injustice, that context speaks. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

Origenes, the experience of preference is subjective, first person and we take the statement or observe behaviour as normally enough warrant. There is no transcending of the first person, but yet again you fail to deal with the focal matter of error proneness. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PST}

LCD said:
Nope. You admitted that the morality is not your highest value...
That's not the same as the claim that I've been ignoring it. It's obvious I've been giving morality a lot of thought. Also, if you and I have two different ideas on what moral law is and how it works, that's not the same thing as me "ignoring" moral law. BTW, I don't believe in karma, at least not in the traditional sense. I think moral law is handled inescapably and naturally, but it doesn't involve any eternal, final disposition. There is always the opportunity for change and growth and moving on to greener pastures.William J Murray_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PST}

Very good point, Origenes. I wonder if Stephen will respond to this point, as well as my post 187, where I asked,
Where do they reside? If I am aware that I have a certain belief, or other piece of knowledge about myself, that I perceive internally and that no one else can experience, how does this “fact” exist outside of myself in some transcendent way?
Your point is that Stephen's reasoning puts every judgment we have, from a moral belief to liking vanilla rather than chocolate, into a transcendent realm outside of our self.Viola Lee_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

SB @186
O: “I exist” & “I am self-aware” are claims where subject and object are not distinct things. It stems from the “I” perceiving itself. Subjective for sure, and yet it constitutes fundamental knowledge.
SB: All facts are objective. All experiences are subjective. The claim that you exist and the means by which you discover that you exist (your judgement and mental processes) are all subjective; but the truth value in that claim (the incontestable *fact* you exist) is objective, All facts, *including facts about yourself*, transcend your conscious awareness.
If this is true, than no subjective claims exist. Even to claim that one prefers vanilla flavor ice-cream over chocolate flavor ice-cream is “objective”, because, according to your tortured reasoning, the claim is about the *fact* of this preference, which somehow transcends the preference hold by the subject. In #182 I pointed to a similar problem. By wrongly conflating the terms ‘truth’ and ‘objective’, you leave no room for the subject.Origenes_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PST}

WJM Most non-Christian, traditional views o reincarnation include the concept of karma, which can easily be understood as an inescapable moral law, or an exact form of “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Wrong. Again. If there is an inescapable moral law then is no free will because Hitler will reach "the non-self"(doesn't matter if Hitler wants or not is forced to end in the same place with saints so WHERE IS THE MORAL LAW?) . Reincarnation make no sense , one come from a non-self and end in the same place. Why started in the first place ? :lol:
my entire participation on this thread has been about 90% morality.
Nope. You admitted that the morality is not your highest value , the pleasure is and if the morality stays between you and your pleasure you will ignore morality and choose pleasure. IS THAT BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE MORE LIFES SO YOU WILL FIX IT LATER? :lol: Reincarnation is a decoy.Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PST}

Viola Lee:
Fairness and goodness (or unfairness and evil) are properties of creatures that have the knowledge and will to order their actions, such as humans, and (theoretically, for those who believe in them) Gods.
Complete gibberish.
Also, when an animal dies, there is no ETERNAL DEATH, although I don’t know why the all caps. The animal is just dead, but there is nothing that continues on dead for eternity.
So dead things come back to life at some point? Or are you just a clueless troll?ET_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PST}

LCD said:
Nope. Reincarnation (it’s just like a temporary hell) cancel moral law and make it redundant but EVERYTHING in this world gravitate around the moral law therefore all ideas that try to disregard the morality are FALSE.
Most non-Christian, traditional views o reincarnation include the concept of karma, which can easily be understood as an inescapable moral law, or an exact form of "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
You make a big deal talking about “mind” or “consciousness” while ignoring morality that is the central part of consciousness ?
Not only did I specifically make a point about morality in my comments above, my entire participation on this thread has been about 90% morality. I've spent at least 3 years on this site arguing both sides of the morality question. I've recently agreed that there is a sound argument for the concept of objective morality (in terms of it being applicable to all sentient beings.) The evidence clearly demonstrates that you are wrong that I have "ignored morality." I wonder if you'll be able to admit it?William J Murray_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PST}

William J Murray ~~Astral Projection and OOBEs (Out Of Body Experience)~~ ~~NDEs (Near Death Experiences)~~ ~~Reincarnation Research that indicates~~ ~~Hypnotic Regression to life between lives.~~ Quantum Physics – 100 years of quantum physics research and experimentation ~~has provided the scientific foundation for~~how and why our conscious experiences continue after physical death: our experience of physical reality occurs entirely in what we call “mind” or “consciousness.”
Nope. Reincarnation (it's just like a temporary hell) cancel moral law and make it redundant but EVERYTHING in this world gravitate around the moral law therefore all ideas that try to disregard the morality are FALSE. You make a big deal talking about "mind" or "consciousness" while ignoring the morality that is the central part of consciousness ?Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PST}

#198 @ #199 above represent a very, very brief outline of an enormous wealth of information and resources currently available about the afterlife. I personally know several scientists and one atheist, formerly a materialist, still a professional skeptic that, once apprised of this evidence, were convinced by it. Many of them, using various techniques that are teachable, have visited the afterlife for themselves and also communicate with the dead. There are at least tens of thousands of such people who have offered their testimony and evidence about visiting the afterlife, communications and interactions with the dead. As I showed in #199, it was considered by some of the leading scientists at the time to have been scientifically proved in the early 1900's. The evidence and testimony goes back throughout recorded history; over the past 100+ years there has been a lot of additional scientific research that has only served to verify this information. What the information and evidence unambiguously demonstrates is something that we can keep very simple for the purposes of this conversation: the afterlife is clearly not regulated to only Christian-specific locations, thought, beliefs or lifestyles. Some of the Christians here claim that their views are evidence and logic-based. They talk a lot about the value of eye-witness testimony and the miracles depicted in the Bible. Let's see how that holds up. Let's assume that all of the witnessed miracles in the Bible are accurately depicted. Under this premise, supernatural beings capable of causing supernatural events exist. This is also claimed by many different religions and spiritual beliefs. I and hundreds of other people have personally witnessed such events. Countless people throughout time, in many different cultures, have testified to experiencing both supernatural beings and supernatural events. In logically assessing the evidence we are accepting arguendo as good, and under the premise that powerful, supernatural beings exist, in the Bible we have a supernatural being claiming to be "the" God. To support this claim, this being performs many miraculous, supernatural feats. Here's the problem: since we agree supernatural beings can perform supernatural feats, how do we know that this particular being is "the" God? Here's where the bad logic comes in: this being (remember, this is a hypothetical) is the one telling us what the evidence is that it is God. IOW, "you will know that I am God because X will happen and I can and will do Y." How is any of that "evidence" that the being is who and what it claims to be? There is literally no way to make any independent, objective assessment about what "the" God could and would do outside of what that same being is saying. It's all purely circular reasoning because, supposedly, this being wrote the book in question himself (albeit through human instruments.) A lot of the argument here is in the form of gaining evidence that what this being says in that book is true. Such as historical facts or other kinds of evidence, like the Shroud of Turin. However, just because an entity can tell you facts doesn't mean that what that being says those facts mean is true. Scientists can tell us all sorts of facts that we can evidence ourselves; that does not mean that what scientists claim those facts mean is true. The actual evidence and eye-witness testimony we have about the afterlife clearly demonstrate that this being's claims about what awaits us in the afterlife is not true. Also, its claim that it is the epitome of love, mercy, and justice is self-evidently false by demanding our love or else, and by its claim that eternal torment awaits those who do not actually love it. We all know without further explanation that this is not loving; it is not merciful; it is not just. Now, will any of those who advocate that this particular being is "the God" and has the intrinsic values of being loving, merciful and just, and who has told them about the binary nature of the afterlife, accept the argument and evidence here and admit there is something wrong with their worldview beliefs? Of course not. This is because their position is not really decided by the logic or the evidence. They have absolutely no non-circular evidence that this being is who and what it claims to be, other than a powerful supernatural entity making many grandiose claims about itself, many of which cannot be verified in any way, such as "creating the universe."William J Murray_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PST}

(Continued from 198 above) Astral Projection and OOBEs (Out Of Body Experience) Countless, credible, first-person accounts of visiting the dead while fully conscious, in a "different world" that is fully physical and real. Michael Raduga developed an entirely secular training course that has a high success rate. However, allow me to let the US government to validate all of this in its own words. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf NDEs (Near Death Experiences) - including cases where the brain has been drained of blood and the brainwaves are entirely flat for extended periods of time. Here is a good paper that examines the evidence and explains why scientists refuse to even consider the afterlife theory to explain the evidence, and ignore evidence that contradicts their anti-afterlife predisposition. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399124/ https://nderf.org/ Reincarnation Research that indicates that children not only often remember past lives, but often have physical markers on their bodies from past lives. Sample of evidence: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2016/12/REI35.pdf Hypnotic Regression to life between lives. Quantum Physics - 100 years of quantum physics research and experimentation has provided the scientific foundation for how and why our conscious experiences continue after physical death: our experience of physical reality occurs entirely in what we call "mind" or "consciousness." There is no independent world of matter and energy. Consciousness causes our experience of a physical world, which includes our physical bodies; thus our consciousness is not dependent on our physical body. It cannot be. There are currently at least two groups of scientists who are working on mental reality theories of our existence: Quantum Gravity Research - https://quantumgravityresearch.org/portfolio/what-is-reality-movie/ The Essentia Foundation - https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory of evolution: " My position is that the phenomena of communicating with those who crossed over - in their entirety do not require further confirmation. They are proved quite as well as facts are proved in other sciences." Sir William Barrett, (1844-1925) – Professor of physics at the Royal College of Science in Dublin for 37 years, “I’m absolutely convinced of the fact that those who once lived on earth can and do communicate with us. It is hardly possible to convey to the inexperienced an adequate idea of the strength and cumulative force of the evidence (for the afterlife).” Sir William Crookes (1832-1919) – A physicist and chemist, the most decorated scientist in his time. He discovered the element thallium and was a pioneer in radioactivity. " “It is quite true that a connection has been set up between this world and the next.” Sir Oliver Lodge (1851-1940) – Professor of physics at University College in Liverpool, England and later principal at the University of Birmingham, Lodge achieved world fame for his pioneering work in electricity, including the radio and spark plug. " I tell you with all my strength of the conviction which I can muster that we do persist, that people still continue to take an interest in what is going on, that they know far more about things on this earth than we do, and are able from time to time to communicate with us…I do not say it is easy, but it is possible, and I have conversed with my friends just as I can converse with anyone in this audience now."William J Murray_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PST}

I'm going to break a comment I attempted earlier down into parts so I can keep the links. This information will lay the groundwork for a evidential and eye-witness argument to follow. When it comes to afterlife dispensation, there is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence that the Christian-binary system of "heaven vs hell" is not the case: ADC (After Death Communication) in the form of signs, mental-auditory, physical auditory, semi-physical and fully physical manifestation contact, scents and touch, both waking an in dreams. Research data and website about ADCs. Book that examines this evidence: Hello From Heaven. https://www.adcrf.org/houck_research.htm https://www.amazon.com/Hello-Heaven-Research-After-Death-Communication-Confirms/dp/0553576348/ Mediums - tested, highly-observed, credible physical, evidential, and direct-voice communication, including decades of rigorous, scientific experimentation and study by the University of Virginia Dept. of Perceptual Studies and others. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGtiKd3o1PKzKNnBCPvJWcg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17234565/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYbJVimZZYE The Scole Experiment ITC (Instrumental Transcommunication) using various technological means to communicate, including radio, TV, and various electronic devices, usually recorded, often under rigorous conditions, including the current successful development "soul phone" technology : "The SoulPhone™ refers to integrative technologies for communicating with postmaterial (so-called “deceased”) persons. Devices are being developed by Gary E. Schwartz PhD and his team at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness & Health." https://www.thesoulphonefoundation.org/soulphone-overview/ (continued}William J Murray_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PST}

KF said:
VL and Querius, for record, the pivotal issue is to reckon with our error proneness.
Which is why it is important for our reasoning to account for things that are self-evidently true and necessarily true. As you and Mr. Arrington point out, there self-evidently true moral statements that need to be accounted for as true in our worldviews. You and others have constantly beat that drum. If anyone thinks there are conditions in which tossing a baby in the garbage is not evil, their reasoning/worldview is flawed. I agree. That is a problem for moral subjectivists and relativists. The problem for you and SB and others is: eternal torment is evil. It is not just, merciful or loving. That is self-evidently true. You're doing the same thing you accuse so many others of here: you're trying to justify an unjustifiable evil. No argument, no logical arrangement of metaphysics can change that fact. If we are so error-prone as to make such an enormous, fundamental mistake in recognizing what is evil as that, then there is no firm footing to be found anywhere to ground our reasoning about anything. The reason I can confidently say that you are in error, KF, is because you're trying to convince me and others here that A=Not-A. In any other relationship, everyone would immediately agree that attempting to coerce someone to love you under threat of pain and suffering is sick and twisted. It is abhorrent to the core. It is self-evidently evil. We all know this.William J Murray_{January 26, 2022
January
01
Jan
26
26
2022
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PST}

VL and Querius, for record, the pivotal issue is to reckon with our error proneness. Our first person experience, perception, contemplation, expectation, decision, opinion etc are all reflective of our being finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed or even sometimes stubborn to the point of willful obtuseness. We therefore have a need and duty to apply responsible filtering via right reason to attain adequate reliability and warrant. This even applies to the degree of trust with awareness of limitations we should apply to senses such as sight, hearing, etc. likewise to our reasoning etc. That which is so adequately warranted is objective, reasonably independent of that error proneness. Seven year olds are aware of this, there has been no good reason for this to have been belaboured distractively for months and used to sidetrack discussion after discussion, including on absolutely pivotal questions for our civilisation. That it continues to come up with unresponsiveness to due explanation speaks sad volumes. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2022
January
01
Jan
25
25
2022
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PST}

VL, it is regrettably obvious that you have not reckoned with the substance in 96, especially the direct citation of a foundational source. SB and Q are quite correct on judgement by responsiveness to the light one has or has reasonable access to. I note for brevity, Rom 2:7, where its context is laid out in 96: " 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Note the contrast in v 8, regarding " those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness" who face God's just wrath for abuse of the gifts of responsible, rational freedom that open up a world of truth in love, a new order of good in the cosmos. Where, vv 14 - 15 point out how "the work of the law is written on [our] hearts, while [our] conscience also bears witness, and [our] conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse [us]." As, from 13:8 - 10, neighbour love embeds right conduct starting with something highly relevant to OP, respect for right to life. In short the objection you posed reflects a strawman caricature of the Christian teaching, as was there in your 86 as was answered for record in 96. That the caricature still appears ~ 100 comments later in 184 speaks, tellingly and sadly. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2022
January
01
Jan
25
25
2022
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PST}

Vl, selective hyperskepticism gambit. You know the value and validity of eyewitness lifetime testimony and record with good chain of custody. The text you disparage is clearly a record of the early official testimony dating to 35 - 38 AD (on events c 30 AD) and reflects Aramaic, e.g. Kepha. In context, it is cited AD 55 to answer a controversy and in effect the point is, the majority are yet alive, go talk to them; AD 65 and the Nero persecution being yet a decade in the future and Gallio's c AD 51 decision having powerful restraining effect, that worthy being Seneca's brother. You don't do that sort of appeal in answer to a challenge without facts. And in fact 20+ witnesses are readily identifiable and we have writings from a good number of these. But of course it remains that you have a link in 96, and that is already once removed from the OP focus. KFkairosfocus_{January 25, 2022
January
01
Jan
25
25
2022
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PST}

Quierius asks, "... then where do conscious moral judgments originate?" In human beings. That's what I and Origenes and other are saying. And I'm not a materialist, so your true/false question doesn't apply to what I am discussing. Also, when an animal dies, there is no ETERNAL DEATH, although I don't know why the all caps. The animal is just dead, but there is nothing that continues on dead for eternity. Their life is just over. And you continue to personify nature: nature does not condemn anything. Condemnation is not something nature does: the word and quality just don't apply to nature. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2022
January
01
Jan
25
25
2022
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST}

Viola Lee @190, Excellent. So, "If nature were is not Nature: it’s not a conscious, willful entity capable of moral judgments the way humans are . . ." then where do conscious moral judgments originate? And aren't you the least bit bothered that Nature (or nature) condemns its living things to a cruel and unjust ETERNAL DEATH or are you amoral? And yes, this is indeed relevant to the original OP regarding babies in dumpsters:
As I have said before, no sane person actually lives their life as if materialism is true.
True or false? -QQuerius_{January 25, 2022
January
01
Jan
25
25
2022
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST}

Fairness and goodness (or unfairness and evil) are properties of creatures that have the knowledge and will to order their actions, such as humans, and (theoretically, for those who believe in them) Gods. A tiger is not evil when it catches a deer. The universe is neither fair or not fair. Asking whether nature is unfair or not is like asking whether the ocean is proud: it's a category error. I'll note that you personify Nature by capitalizing the word. If nature were is not Nature: it's not a conscious, willful entity capable of moral judgments the way humans are, and God is (to those who believe.). I don't think this is particularly relevant to the discussion.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2022
January
01
Jan
25
25
2022
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14 Next