Who am I? Why am I here?

[Sparetherod]

john doran Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparetherod
Actually I can sense the consequences of your thoughts in what they produce…actions, writings, etc. This is the same way I deduce that magnetism is real…it interacts with us.

as a matter of fact, you cannot perceive other minds - you infer their existence, but cannot deductively prove it.

We both believe that other people have minds and that physical reality is not in question, is it? We better, because both can be dangerous.

Originally Posted by Sparetherod
You deduce a god that has no real interaction with us…I reject that, as I would a unicorn, fairy, etc.

not true - (catholic) theists perceive what they take to the the actions of god all the time, in the same way that you believe you perceive the interactions of human minds.

Our minds are interacting right now. These writings are evidence. Where is there evidence, for all to infer, that it is a Catholic God interacting anywhere? What…existance itself? Others claim their god did it. And if existance needs doing…why couldn’t my unicorns have done it?

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

We both believe that other people have minds and that physical reality is not in question, is it? We better, because both can be dangerous.

sure. but neither of us can prove the existence of either - we just ***believe ***it.

Sparetherod:

Our minds are interacting right now. These writings are evidence. Where is there evidence, for all to infer, that it is a Catholic God interacting anywhere? What…existance itself? Others claim their god did it. And if existance needs doing…why couldn’t my unicorns have done it?

just saying that you believe i have a mind isn’t the same thing as proving it; what you directly perceive are letters on a screen, but there’s no direct experience of my mind. only i have direct experience of such a thing (and even that isn’t a definitive proof of anything, since my experience of myself is just another experience the reliability of which is not itself capable of irrefutable demonstration - just ask Hume).

the evidence of god’s interaction with the world is in peoples’ experience of him, just as the “proof” of my mind is in your experience of it - that is, there are people who simply perceive that he exists, to whom the reality of god is just obvious. and, besides self-evidence, the data for that kind of belief can be things like the majesty of mountains, or a sunset or whatever.

of course, these aren’t things that will necessarily convince anyone lacking such an experience that the object of the experience actually exists, any more than your experience of the color red is compelling evidence of its existence to a blind person. but equally uncompelling is the blind person’s argument that your inability to provide compelling proof of your sightedness is reason for you to doubt what you’re seeing…

 

[PLP]

Neithan:

PLP, you do not believe that God exists. How do you discover existence? Is it purely through your five senses? Is all of existence directly perceivable?

I’ll have to start a thread on the Metaphysical Scientific Materialism. In brief, under MSM, ontological existence is established by being an entity required by the best (simplest) scientific theory to account for (logically entail) perceptual evidence.

For example, how would you convince a man born blind of the existence of the moon and stars, of light in general?

By demonstrating that the existence of such objects is the best scientific theory to account for what he can perceive, especially language use. If he queries people independent of each other and they all say the same thing about the moon and the stars, the best scientific theory to account for their responses would be the existence of those objects.

He cannot hear, taste, smell or feel them. If a man born blind was a strict empiricist, he would reject the existence of many things which those of us blessed with all five senses accept without question.

Au contraire! I think even a blind person would end up having much the same ontology as a sighted person. And even those of us will all senses should not accept our ontology “without question”; even the seemingly obvious can prove wrong on careful investigation.

In much the same way do many of us theists see the reasonability of the existence of God. That we cannot directly perceive God is not a very good basis for disbelieving in his existence…

Happily, this is not, in fact, the basis of my own atheism.

…since that leaves us with the problem of existence itself–where does everything come from? and why? etc. the classic cosmological and teleological arguments for God still stand as perfectly reasonable.

I’m about 1/3 done with my exposition on First Cause-related arguments (which include the Cosmological and Teleological arguments). Stay tuned for more info.

The general lack of any atheistic teleological argument is a rather large hole in reasoning for me personally.

Well, I generally reject an overall teleology of the universe; my position is that there is no good reason to believe that the universe serves any extrinsic purpose.

Frankly, theism has more positive arguments in favour of it than atheism. The only real positive argument which I (in my admittedly limited experience) have come across in favour of atheism is the Problem of Evil. Even that can not really get any farther than a minimalist deism.

The PoE is a very good argument against an omnimax deity. I’ll have to post a thread about it when it comes around on the guitar.

The atheist’s main argument is ‘I can not see, hear, feel, taste, or smell it… therefore it does not exist.’ However, you cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or smell the thoughts/ideas in my mind—but they exist nevertheless, they are real. You logically deduce that they exist, not sensibly induce.

This is not quite accurate. The atheist’s main argument is this:
The existence of a God is not necessary to construct the simplest scientific explanation for what I do in fact see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. Therefore there is no good reason to believe the existence of a God. Furthermore, if God were a conscious, and even only very powerful and very good, we would expect to see that which we do not, in fact, see (e.g. the PoE).

Basically, I’m curious about the lack of evidence which you reference–is it the lack of directly perceivable evidence?

See above.

 

[Neithan]

Sparetherod:

I would argue that it is not faith but reason also which allows him to conclude that everyone is not lying to him. Imagine his dilemma if only 50% of people told him there were really stars in the sky. If neither could prove the position, should he believe it just because some say it just feels good to believe?

It is impossible for a person born blind to accept the existence of light based on reasoned knowledge–he has absolutely no direct personal experience of it. It must be accepted on faith. Certainly his reason is never divorced from his faith, but faith and reason should never be mutually exclusive! (yes, I am aware that many Christians are guilty of this… in the Catholic Church it is technically a heresy [see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm”]fideism]).
If roughly half of people he came across told him the stars existed, and half didn’t, he would have to resort to other measures besides pure survey–but in the end it would have to be a decision based on faith (though it should be motivated by reason). If he strictly applied Occam’s Razor he would reject the existence of the stars, because it’s simpler that way, however, the stars do really in fact exist.

90% say it feels good to believe. That still doesn’t make it true, does it? Since your proofs fall flat, us blind folks still only have the feel good argument to go by.

You’re totally right that truth is not defined by emotion! It’s true that theism has an emotional pull for theists, but that definitely is not a basis to judge truth. I’m confused as to why you seem to think that there are only ‘feel good’ arguments available from the theistic corner. There are certainly many purely cerebral theistic philosophers/scientists out there. Anyway, isn’t it true that atheists ‘feel good’ about what they beleive? In the end, everything is based on your Will–you are going to beleive that you *want *to beleive. Most of us of course want to beleive the truth–but we can’t help having it coloured somehow beforehand by our primal desires.

Be careful of bad analogies, they over simplify and look foolish.
Actually I can sense the consequences of your thoughts in what they produce…actions, writings, etc. This is the same way I deduce that magnetism is real…it interacts with us. You deduce a god that has no real interaction with us…I reject that, as I would a unicorn, fairy, etc.

The consequence of my thoughts are perceivable words and actions, true–but the point is that *material *consequences arise from an *immaterial *source. An *immaterial cause *of a material effect. That’s a little microcosm of the theistic cosmological argument: God is the *immaterial cause *and the Universe is the material effect. This analogy is particular apt, IMHO, because it also gives us a small model of an immaterial intelligent agent directly manipulating matter, and therefore it is reasonable to argue that an immaterial intelligence caused (and is continuing to cause, or ‘sustain’) matter at the greatest possible level i.e. Universe.
This also fits into teleology, since all of a mind’s actions are ordered toward an end, it is fitting that the action (the Universe) of the mind (God) which caused it is ordered to some end (purpose). This ‘purpose’ can be seen everywhere, and no scientific law or theory could be possible without it (otherwise everything should be complete chaos). Now I don’t want to pretend that I know anything about quantum mechanics, but isn’t it possible (or even probable) that what currently *appears *to our limited perception as true randomness could in fact be ordered movement which is simply not yet fully understood?

Peace.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

It is impossible for a person born blind to accept the existence of light based on reasoned knowledge–he has absolutely no direct personal experience of it. It must be accepted on faith. Certainly his reason is never divorced from his faith, but faith and reason should never be mutually exclusive! (yes, I am aware that many Christians are guilty of this… in the Catholic Church it is technically a heresy [see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm”]fideism

]).
If roughly half of people he came across told him the stars existed, and half didn’t, he would have to resort to other measures besides pure survey–but in the end it would have to be a decision based on faith (though it should be motivated by reason). If he strictly applied Occam’s Razor he would reject the existence of the stars, because it’s simpler that way, however, the stars do really in fact exist.

…

I would definitely dispute the claim that belief in anything that cannot be directly perceived (or has not been) is belief based on faith. No-one has ever directly perceived an atom, yet we do not take their existence on faith. Rather, it is entirely reasonable to believe in their existence based on evidence from our other senses.

 

[Sparetherod]

John,

I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about here, but I will have to cry uncle and concede. At this point I’m not even sure if I walked up to you and hit you up side the head you would admit that I exist and have a mind that has intentions. PLP, I may need your help on this, I’m only your wingman, remember.

Later,Rod

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

John,

I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about here, but I will have to cry uncle and concede. At this point I’m not even sure if I walked up to you and hit you up side the head you would admit that I exist and have a mind that has intentions. PLP, I may need your help on this, I’m only your wingman, remember.

it’s a simple point, really: you find fault with theists for believing certain propositions for which they lack a specific kind of deductive evidence you seem to consider necessary for reasonable belief, but which you yourself lack for some propositions in which ***you ***believe.

 

[john_doran]

PLP:

I’ll have to start a thread on the Metaphysical Scientific Materialism. In brief, under MSM, ontological existence is established by being an entity required by the best (simplest) scientific theory to account for (logically entail) perceptual evidence.

simplest how? conceptually? ontologically? logically? mathematically? simple for whom?

and what about the other values of theory-choice? like number of ad hoc revisions? explanatory power? predictive ability? fit with other generally accepted theories? which theories? how do you rank number of theories that fit with the relative importance of those theories? elegance? aesthetic appeal?

PLP:

By demonstrating that the existence of such objects is the best scientific theory to account for what he can perceive, especially language use. If he queries people independent of each other and they all say the same thing about the moon and the stars, the best scientific theory to account for their responses would be the existence of those objects.

sort of like if he talked to a million people and they all professed belief in the existence of a god? the blind man would then be entitled to postulate the existence of such a being as the best explanation of his linguistic experience?

PLP:

The PoE is a very good argument against an omnimax deity.

i’ll be interested to see the argument and what makes it “good”.

PLP:

This is not quite accurate. The atheist’s main argument is this:The existence of a God is not necessary to construct the simplest scientific explanation for what I do in fact see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. Therefore there is no good reason to believe the existence of a God. Furthermore, if God were a conscious, and even only very powerful and very good, we would expect to see that which we do not, in fact, see (e.g. the PoE).

even were it true that maximal theoretical simplicity entailed truth, or at least maximal reasonableness of belief, it simply does not follow that other, less parsimonious theories have no good reasons recommending them for belief. even ignoring the possibility that a theory can be simpler than another in one way, but more complicated than another in another, to say that there’s is no good reason to place one’s conviction in a (marginally?) more complicated theory is not just not true.

 

[Sparetherod]

I’m confused as to why you seem to think that there are only ‘feel good’ arguments available from the theistic corner. There are certainly many purely cerebral theistic philosophers/scientists out there. Anyway, isn’t it true that atheists ‘feel good’ about what they beleive? In the end, everything is based on your Will–you are going to beleive that you want to beleive. Most of us of course want to beleive the truth–but we can’t help having it coloured somehow beforehand by our primal desires.

I was raised a Catholic.To be honest,at first I did not “feel good” about coming to atheistic conclusions. It felt like confessing to a murder. It truly took years to convince myself that this belief in God was a fallacy of an imperfect reasoning system we call our mind…that I was prone to see supernatural causes for things unknown, that I was prone to superstition and marveled at coincidence, especially when it seemed to be in my favor, and saw this as an approving God. This was not a primal desire to reject God. And I use God, big G, because I was only slightly aware of all the little g gods out there. Only when one can discipline the mind to see in a scientific perspective and use reason and rules of evidence can we expect real knowledge. This has never failed me since, and allows an awsome appreciation of just what has happened in nature through purely natural causes. Only then could one say it "feels good " to be an atheist…which it does. I feel free. I do not blame people who have not gone through this process. I only lament that, in a world of WMDs, most are divided by beliefs that are incompatible. People do not fly planes into buildings for science or knowledge…they do for religion.

Rod

 

[Neithan]

PLP:

If he queries people independent of each other and they all say the same thing about the moon and the stars, the best scientific theory to account for their responses would be the existence of those objects.

Okay, consider such a hypothetical: human beings evolved without eyesight. Now, according to the simplest materialistic theory, the moon and stars do not exist. But they do in fact exist, right? This is sort of like that old cliche ‘if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ If something is imperceivable, does that mean it isn’t there?

I suppose I’m begging the ontological question somewhat here but God, or some form of deity, is a nearly universal human idea–isn’t it probable that there is some truth in it?

Consider this hypothetical analogy building on the first: human beings have evolved without eyesight and therefore do not have any concept of the moon and stars. They can, however, feel the heat of the Sun, even though they cannot see it, nor the light it emanates. Where is this heat coming from? For these blind humans, it is impossible to discover the answer beyond a reasonable doubt–based on their four senses alone–any further than ‘somewhere far above the ground.’ Suppose most simply accept the concept of some great single source of this heat far above them, but a smaller segment point at the lack of directly perceivable evidence of such a concept, and decide to accept–for the sake of simplicity–that the heat is just there without a necessary single source. We could divide this blind humanity into ‘sunists’ and ‘asunists’ (respectively) based on their beliefs (or lack thereof) of a great source in the sky for the heat they feel.
Replace the ‘Sun’ in this hypothetical with ‘God,’ ‘heat’ with ‘universe,’ and you have a rough comparison to the current theism/atheism debate. God (or ‘Deity’) is not directly perceivable to any of us, but it seems that most human beings, now and throughout human history, accept that some great intelligence is the source of our existence, of what we *do *directly perceive.

Well, I generally reject an overall teleology of the universe; my position is that there is no good reason to believe that the universe serves any extrinsic purpose

This just seems illogical and contradictory to our search for the ‘simplest explanation.’ This isn’t an explanation at all–it refuses to recognize that an explanation is even there. Doesn’t the Anthropic Principle suggest that we, as in human beings, are purposed? What about life? Isn’t it just good logic to conclude that life is a purpose of the universe? Why are our human minds so consumed with purpose? Where does this concept of purpose come from, if the origin of all things (the universe) is devoid of it?
Sometimes I think materialism is a major pandemic of ‘not seeing the forest for the trees.’ Materialists get lost in the little details of evolution, and fail to step back to admire the whole sweeping picture. What a marvel! How can it be an accident? It reminds me of this dilemma:

A man convicted of murder and sentenced to death was told by the judge that he would be executed within a week, but the day of death would be a surprise. Which day is it? If one examines each day and the mathematical probabilites of that day being the date of the man’s death… then none of the days in the forthcoming week can be a surprise. It can’t be the 7th day, because the man would know for sure by the end of the 6th. It can’t be the 6th day, because, since the 7th is impossible, the man would know for sure by the night of 5th. But then it can’t be the 5th day…etc. However, the fact remains that the execution will be a surprise, and the man does not know when it will take place, mathematical probabilites aside.
Vice versa, materialists may get lost in the tiny details of apparently random mutations in evolution… but when one looks at the whole of it, it is rather obvious that it is ordered. Order implies purpose!

The existence of a God is not necessary to construct the simplest scientific explanation for what I do in fact see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. Therefore there is no good reason to believe the existence of a God. Furthermore, if God were a conscious, and even only very powerful and very good, we would expect to see that which we do not, in fact, see (e.g. the PoE).

Is simplicity a ruler for truth?
Is science the measure of all truth?
How can science rule out or ignore intelligent causes when it is itself caused and sustained by intelligences?

The physical universe can account for a source for our bodies–but what about our minds? Are they material too? Why can’t you see, feel, taste, hear or smell them, or do you think this will one day be possible?

PoE certainly is a good argument, although theism has its counters (you might call em ‘cop-outs’ ). Feel free to add your take on it!

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

People do not fly planes into buildings for science or knowledge…they do for religion.

is that what josef mengele thought he was doing? religion?

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

I would definitely dispute the claim that belief in anything that cannot be directly perceived (or has not been) is belief based on faith. No-one has ever directly perceived an atom, yet we do not take their existence on faith. Rather, it is entirely reasonable to believe in their existence based on evidence from our other senses.

I don’t mean ‘naked’ perception–it can be enhanced. Ernest Rutherford used alpha particles in his famous 1910 experiment. Light to a blind man is completely imperceptible to him. He can certainly reason about the truth of those who tell him it exists, but he basically accepts that truth on faith. Anyway, I personally accept the existence of atoms, protons and electrons based on faith. I’m not a scientist and have not personally conducted all of the experiments necessary to prove their existence, I simply have faith in the authority of the scientists who wrote those physics textbooks I read. Faith is necessary to build any practical construction of knowledge.

(b) Now intellectual knowledge may be defined in a general way as the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. But a truth is intelligible to us only in so far as it is evident to us, and evidence is of different kinds; hence, according to the varying character of the evidence, we shall have varying kinds of knowledge. Thus a truth may be self-evident – e.g. the whole is greater than its part – in which case we are said to have intuitive knowledge of it; or the truth may not be self-evident, but deducible from premises in which it is contained – such knowledge is termed reasoned knowledge; or again a truth may be neither self-evident nor deducible from premises in which it is contained, yet the intellect may be obliged to assent to it because It would else have to reject some other universally accepted truth; lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority – for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life…] (newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)

 

[Sparetherod]

I suppose I’m begging the ontological question somewhat here but God, or some form of deity, is a nearly universal human idea–isn’t it probable that there is some truth in it?

Only the methods of science should convince us of truth that appears to be in opposition to common sense or intuition. Everybody knows the world is flat, right? I offer this next bit again for the third time, as an explanation for the phenomena of religion, as nobody, yet, has commented on it.

Actually faith is fairly understandable from the standpoint of an evolving human mind. My take on faith from that angle, reprinted from post# 83 that got no comment as far as I can tell:

Actually, I would love to see evidence for a god, and UFOs, and ESP, and astral projection, and psychokinesis, and the list goes on. They’re all in the same category for me. Fancifull ideas with no evidence other than testimonials, tradition, faith, or misinterpretation of natural phenomena.
The idea of a god may be a little different, precisely for the reason more people hold to it. Our brains are wired to see causality. All things happen for a reason, don’t they? We are even capable of projecting reasoning or intention onto others; a very helpful survival tool in a social creature. We are also very aware of the difference between living and non-living things. Death confuses us. What happens to the life, the intentions, of the dead? Might it be that it still exists around us, still has intentions, and interacts with us…a nonscientific mind might find this reasonable, and certainly early man saw meaning and intention behind many natural phenomena. Coincidences would drive them crazy. “Hey, I was hoping that guy would just die…and then that tree feel on him.” “Man, the last time we danced, it rained!!” Couple the fact that we tend to presume causes, spirits, intentions, the “evidence” of coincidence, with story telling…and voila, you got religion. It all seemed reasonable to early man, and developed in all cultures, because as I said, we’re wired for it. Religions evolved as well, animism and ancestor worship, to polytheism and then monotheism. With modern religion we don’t even have to give up the spirits of our ancestors…".we’re all going to heaven…but wait, thats only if you believe and behave, because after all, the gods and spirits want something…they still have intentions." Does that make any of this true or real? Of course not. Any religious claim to how the world works can be put to the test, except for the very existence of spirits and gods, which is after all only an idea without attributes. All claims of interaction with us can and have been put to the scientific test and found lacking, which is why we hardly think it’s reasonable to sacrifice goats any more. Prayer and occasional coincidental results still have a powerful influence on the gullible, though. Before the scientific method came along the human mind had no real way of testing his religious theories, we now do and they don’t work, except for the undoubted sense of well being that some claim from belief itself. Can that be replicated in other ways? Yes. So when the magical thinking is revealed as false, all we are left with is the basic question…could gods exist? Who knows? Anyone who caims to have the answer, needs to start their own personal religion, because no two people will believe in the same god. And I would prefer that they kept it to themselves (when it comes to public policy) since they are not likely to have the evidence I will need to believe in their god. Again appeals to faith, tradition, authority, logic word games, emotions, testimonials, all work on many people because they want or need to believe. I’m sure it seems undeniable to them. It’s not.

 

[Sparetherod]

john doran:

is that what josef mengele thought he was doing? religion?

I do prefer to put powerful irrational beliefs like Nazism in the same category as religions. They tend to dehumanize the “other” to justify holocausts and inquisitions.

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

I do prefer to put powerful irrational beliefs like Nazism in the same category as religions. They tend to dehumanize the “other” to justify holocausts and inquisitions.

what’s your preference got to do with it? he, in fact, believed he was doing science.

but be that as it may, the moral behaviour of individuals entails nothing about the truth or falsity of their beliefs.

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

Only the methods of science should convince us of truth that appears to be in opposition to common sense or intuition.

why?

 

[reen12]

quote: PLP

Likewise. To the extent that philosophy aspires to discover certain knowledge, I believe it has utterly failed. To the extent that it is a continuing dialog on the subject of effective thought, there have been some notable successes.

Thanks for your reflection. I would tend to substitute
“useful” for “notable.”

My experience is this: without a personal deity, the
world is a “box.” No exit. This world may be several
things: interesting, useful, even fascinating - but a
“box” it remains - again, in my experience.

I see no particular expansion of freedom in a-theism,
but rather a more limited view of the nature of human
existence. [Still, that is solely my “take” on this.]

When I was decades younger, I thought that the existence
of God was self-evident. I have come to realize -and
respect - the fact that this is not the case.

I can no more “prove” there is a God than sprout wings.
In some sense I could go on existing, experiencing,
thinking, loving if there were no God. If the end of life is
the end, c’est la vie [not to make a pun. ]

What annoys me - no end ! - is a given individual holding
that “logical” ‘proofs’ for the existence of a personal deity are
somehow intellectually compelling.

I…don’t…think…so.

I could rattle on about the ‘rotor on the motor’ [Intelligent
Design] until the cows come home; I could list the
‘proofs’ of Aquinas…to no effect, I think.

What I do know, is this: I was told, at age 6, that there
was a God, Who created heaven and earth and all
that is therein. It made perfect sense, then.

Approaching 60, it still makes sense.

Just my thoughts,

Best,

reen12

 

[Sparetherod]

Morning, John,

but be that as it may, the moral behaviour of individuals entails nothing about the truth or falsity of their beliefs.

Why not? We take normal rational people, indoctrinate them with certain beliefs…and we get holocausts and inquisitions. What can we then infer about those beliefs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparetherod
Only the methods of science should convince us of truth that appears to be in opposition to common sense or intuition.

why?

Because otherwise we would still think genetic disease is punishment, that the earth IS flat, there probably are leprachauns, etc.

What I do know, is this: I was told, at age 6, that there
was a God, Who created heaven and earth and all
that is therein. It made perfect sense, then.

Approaching 60, it still makes sense.

Just my thoughts,

Best,

reen12

This is just my point. The mind of a six year old is hardly able to doubt what is told to him…ie, Santa… like our primative ancestors. Deeply held beliefs are not then, and only later with difficulty, to be doubted, without some systematic way of testing beliefs. I’m sure you’ve discovered that convincing a 30 year old with a science background, of any of these beliefs is almost impossible.

Later, Rod

 

[Sparetherod]

Hey, PLP,
I’ve enjoyed reading your logical arguments…you follow in great footsteps. Just finished reading Seneca: Letters from a Stoic. May I quote for you:
“For the power of philosophy is such that she helps not only those who devote themselves to her, but also those who come in contact with her.”
Thanks for the contact. I thought it was interesting that he died in 65 AD and didn’t seem to be aware of any Christian cults, though he was aware of the foreign cult practice of “vegetarianism” which impressed him. Funny.

He told a little story about a man who came to Sorates complaining that foreign travel never did him any good. Socrates told him “That’s because you always take yourself along with you.”

We haven’t changed much.

Later, Rod

 

[PLP]

Sparetherod:

PLP, I may need your help on this, I’m only your wingman, remember.

You and John appear to be deep in the Metaphysics of Naturalism and Supernaturalism. There really isn’t an easy answer, but I’ll start a thread on Metaphysical Naturalism and Scientific Materialism soon.

In the meantime, I’ll post a quick thread on Empiricism and the Blind Man.