No, it's not. The truth is what's true, even if knowing it means you starve to death. If the truth were some kind of Lovecraftian thing that drives you to insanity by the sheer horror of its awful implications, it wouldn't make it one iota less true.
If you kill your mother and harvest her organs yoh can save the lives of several people. That is a truth. Should you abide by that truth?
Truth is descriptive, not proscriptive. Hume, Is-Ought problem, etc.
No, you made that. I am saying that in the absence of frameworks we create our own. Modern socjus is just that, it has bugger all to do with genuinely helping people, it’s all the worst bits of religion cobbled together in some mutant bastard creation
I made a crap analogy but everyone needs to eat or they die. That is truth. What we eat differs depending on where we live and our cultural background.
In which case, does it matter what you consider to be a factual account of the world? And if it doesn't, does it matter if someone else's factual account differs from your own if your interactions are the same regardless?
Read it few more times. Try to guess why they make a disticntion between
This gonna be good, a sperging about language logics is always good.
This is called 'trolley dilema', not 'truth' and even JHWH is sure that it is nonsense to debate about it.
Worst part is - they sometimes are going to whoreship chinka central planning and communist China.
Only in the sense that, say, assuming the null hypothesis is a "belief". Positing the existence of God (effectively the most complex explanation anyone could ever assert to explain anything) can be safely assumed untrue without some really, really damn compelling evidence.
You can take that totally nihilistic approach that nothing matters and therefore objective, measurable truth is irrelevant, but that doesn't advance the conversation.
Have to worship something.
I agree.
That I disagree with. Once shoild not uneccessarily multiply causes but …Mind bendingly complex things exist. I once spent a whole week twelve hours a day looking down a microscope watching frog eggs develop into tadpoles. Think of how complex that is. Now whether that’s a totally materialistic product of a complex process dictated by simple rules or created or the product of initial starting conditions the big man set up I can’t say, but simplicity vs complexity isn’t always in the side of complexity.
Ascribing that to God does nothing to reduce its biological/chemical/physical complexity while also adding the complexity of the omnipotent, omniscient God of the universe on top.
The only thing I can figure out from your word salad of a post is that you clearly have a poor grasp of the English language, as evidenced by your lack of reading comprehension and the inability to spell simple words.
This can be described as society needs some rules. It isn't important if the rules are called laws, morality, faith, ideology or (as usually) are mix of all of them in different proportions.
It is just degenerating when more people are getting engaded in this. Just like all ideologies, ideas or whatever similar.
So after few more turns around that you will get why they whey make a distinction. Probably. Try few more times, you should get it.
It is more complicated. If someone uses god as a umbrella term for nature or for first reason (intelligent entity or not) he is closer to atheism that he thinks.
www.thetorah.com
-Malachi 1:2-3
-Obadiah 1:10
-Obadiah 1:18
I think it does - the idea that my kids created the mess in the living room is simpler than the idea that it just appeared, or arranged itself. Can God not simplify as well as add causes?
Intentionality is the smallest part of the whole puzzle, though. You still have to explain the mechanisms by which all these things happened unless you're positing that wacky God-magic just became the rigid, immutable laws of thermodynamics one day.
But it's an infinitely simpler hypothesis and has exactly the same explanatory/predictive power. And one need not come up with any alternative hypothesis at all to show the enormous problems in "God did it" as an explanation for anything.
You can just look at this very thread to demonstrate how untrue that is. Practically every other post has unilaterally declared "God did it" to the end-all be-all explanation that solves every riddle.
