The Philosophy Discussion Forum

I don't think we have reason to think that's true, at all. [That within Nature ‘evil’ is a non-existent category]. The Materialist may think that; but you now claim not to be a Materialist. And it's certainly not a given. It really is ‘a given’. It is really more than just a “materialist” (which wo...

For example, he may consider that he's in a universe that runs by rational rules and logical relations, or that his brain is deliberately designed to be interested in truth, or that the Creator made this world in order for us to discover it, and our brains in order that we could. That won't mean th...

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2026 5:47 pm Naturally, that response doesn't address the trustworthiness of the metaphysicist's brain at all

I think you mean in fact the untrustworthiness of that brain.

I don't think that's at all true, either. There are many reasons people choose to believe what they believe, and often these reasons are not rational. However, lots of people here do not believe mere Materialism. And I might add, without giving away too much, that unbeknownst to you, I have been to...

OK, but I can put forward a retort to what you say about “lameness” and “dopeyness” and it might help you to understand why your apologetics has failed so astoundingly miserably for dozens of years… So, in my view we approach the core of ‘the problem’. If you say, and you do say, and you do believe...

Oh, not at all. Materialism has the very problem you've identified: it's completely handicapped when it comes to accounting for the real existence of anything non-material, such as mind, consciousness, identity, meaning, aesthetics, morals...all things we live with every day, but can't be reduced t...

There's no place in that ideology for metaphysics, though. Materialism does not acknowledge the real existence of anything but "materials:" physics, okay...but no metaphysics. Yes, that is right. But it is a ‘worldview’ that is based on the extremely tangible. And presented as such it is ...

But we've really got two problems now: the first one is how we justify imposing ANY metaphysics on what others insist is mere "nature." My view is that the most acute and realistic view is the one that I suppose is the most powerful in our present, and that is the scientific-materialistic...

But we've really got two problems now: the first one is how we justify imposing ANY metaphysics on what others insist is mere "nature." Then, what follows up is this: given the possibility of delusion and lies, what cognitive strategy would you recommend in order to locate the right or tr...

I have not yet brought out what metaphysics are coherent, or perhaps “the more real” (?) but by and by it is possible to make some propositions. So again we return to the issue: how do we prevent our metaphysical beliefs from becoming delusions or offering to false teachers the opportunity to enslav...

How so? You say "because he lives with metaphysics." But cannot a Naturalist say, "Well, that's just a delusion, and he should stop it?" What would your reply to him be? That is, in fact, what most of your “local antagonists” do say! And that is precisely why you cannot gain the...

How so? You say "because he lives with metaphysics." But cannot a Naturalist say, "Well, that's just a delusion, and he should stop it?" What would your reply to him be? You have used up your complimentary questions, IC. Best if you respond to the gist of the “picture” of our hu...

...it is necessary that that shark kill in order to live. Same for the seal: it has no choice but to eat fish and crabs in exactly the same paradigm that you presented with the video of the shark. That's not really the question. The question is whether or not human beings are in the same moral posi...

Assuming that colonizing space is both necessary for survival (and therefore has some temporal expedience) and is also realistically possible for human beings, could a successful program to colonize space be carried out entirely by an "anarchist" commune? It seems doubtful because the ent...

This is the relevant part for your readers to understand how you conceive of ‘evil’: Christian theology is problematic because the concepts are rooted in a very different ‘world picture’. And that picture is that ‘the world was good’ until the Fateful Error of the First People. Then, the World was a...