Philosophy Now Forum

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true. 🙂 That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway. 8) I don...

If He's fictitious, it doesn't matter what you follow. There's no obligation to follow anything...not even your own whims. Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true. 🙂 That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral tru...

Ironic. That's exactly why I don't bother with you...you're just never rational, it seems. That's rich coming from someone who believes the Bible is literal truth. :? Well, we're going to see about that. This is your only 'argument' here. 'We are going to see about that'. The only, real, come back ...

No one can make you reasonable. Ironic. That's exactly why I don't bother with you...you're just never rational, it seems. Coming from the one who tries to argue, from its very own, very obviously very 'subjective' views, that it is a so-called "objectivist" you seem to have missed the tr...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-universe-ever-stop-expanding1/ From your link, which by the way provides absolutely nothing that could remotely be used as actual prove of an expanding Universe, what is first noticed is that the 'presumption' that the Universe is expanding is bel...

How do you know that? For a few reasons, at least: 1. The definition for the word 'Universe' includes, everything; totality; all-there-is; all existing matter and space considered as a whole. 2. Every action causes a reaction, which means there was a cause for all of the 'bangs', which obviously in...

It was you who were asked just a couple of very simple clarifying questions, which you seem to have really struggled in just answering and clarifying. So, if you cannot handle questions, then this is just what it is. I feel your pain. Next time please ask complex questions. Simple ones throw me for...

But you, human beings, did not 'make up' the Universe, which is what actually proves things. It is not possible to prove anything about the physical universe. If this is what you believe is true, then so be it. Also, why do you use the 'physical' word here? What kind of other Universes are there, t...

But, even if they are 'provable', neither of them proves what you are trying to say and claim about 'multiverse'. The arithmetical multiverse is provable. Only when very specific definitions are used, which, again, do not have to necessarily align with the actual Reality, Itself, at all. The physic...

I'm gratified, actually. Talking with you has exposed to me the right route for debunking Subjectivism. And that, for me, has been the whole value of the debate in the first place: to improve our mutual understanding of the situation. We can both see Subjectivism's Achilles heel clearly. I'm quite ...

Actually, belief in Subjectivism won't change any facts. That's the truth. And now it's obvious you aren't really a Subjectivist at all. That should please you. 🙂 I'm gratified, actually. Talking with you has exposed to me the right route for debunking Subjectivism. And that, for me, has been the w...

And, how is the impossible structural similarity between a made up 'arithmetical universe' and the actual Universe, Itself, got to do with heaven and hell supposedly not being just illusory? In religion, heaven and hell are portrayed as nonstandard physical universes. But, in religion, heaven and h...

It could be said and argued that there are multi-verses within the Universe, Itself, but any talk of 'universes' within 'a multiverse' is just a self-contradiction and an oxymoron, to say the least. What you are arguing, is in denial of the completeness theorem and the compactness theorem, which ar...

But, how does this relate to trying to prove that 'God exists', through mathematics, and/or how heaven and hell are not just illusory? This post is not about proving that God exists. It is not about Gödel's ontological proof. It is about the possible structural similarity between the arithmetical m...

Oh, and by the way, listing what is 'morally objective', which absolutely no one could refute, and which is what is inherently known by All human beings, (as "veritas aequitas" goes on about), is about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do. That is, of course, once knows the Tr...