(November 17, 2018 at 7:29 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(November 17, 2018 at 5:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Sure, so possibilities include: perfect judge, imperfect judge, or no judge at all. How did you rule out the latter two?
This sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. What does someone judging us have to do with the nature of human psychological traits?
What does?
Sure. See my first sentence in this reply. “No judge” is one of three possibilities being discussed here. I ask again, how have you ruled it out?
Yes, possibility number two. Do you have evidence that would lead you to the conclusion that such a judge exists?
I agree, it probably wouldn’t. Why do you think such a hypothetical advances your argument?
And for a third time, how have you ruled this possible scenario out? That you don’t like the idea of is neither a reason, nor evidence.
MK, the heart of your argument seems to be, “the thought of no objective meaning horrifies me.” Bluntly, that’s not an argument.
It's because psychological traits even in naturalism perspective aren't physical, at most, they are related to physical (brain) but it's a perception that is not physical, an idea that has to be psychologically perceived to exist. Either our brain or use is that judge in which it has been shown to be imperfect or it's God.
......what...?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
