@DeivonDrago@RedElixier I’ve always found the Everett many world’s interpretation convincing. I think of those worlds as being along the higher detentions of string theory.
@mntn_guy@AtheistPhoenix Atheism is not a religion.
Theism is not a religion.
There are atheistic religions.
There are theistic religions.
Which atheistic religion do you think permits this veiw?
@mntn_guy@AtheistPhoenix Atheism is not a religion.
Theism is not a religion.
There are atheistic religions.
There are theistic religions.
Also, what you’re describing is hedonism.
@TheModernist_CA When I hear the claim that “morality is objective,” what is being claimed is that “ there is a non-mind dependent source for morality.” I have yet to see anything to convince me of this.
@RevIsaacWirtz Wellness is good harm is bad. These are amoral. For morality, we must bring in intentionality. There’s never a question of what is right or wrong, only what acts qualify for right or wrong. And those determinations do change overtime and between people/societies.
@SuperheroFreak@DeivonDrago@QuantaMagazine As the layest of layman, I really like this too. Whenever physicist present ideas that take the equation seriously, I think it’s more on track. I guess it’s another way of saying that everything really is relative.
@LutheranAnswers Bad analogy. Better analogy: you owe $20,000 in debt. I pay off your debt. Whether you believe in me or my action or that you owed the money to begin with is irrelevant to the fact that you no longer owe that money and are debt free.
@gmanm1@icarus62@AleMartnezR1 Perhaps this will help:
Physics describes what does exist because it can exist.
Logic describes what doesn't exist because it cannot exist.
Both describe aspects of how reality is.
@limitandmind I know that you are being facetious, but I've yet to read a convincing argument for objective morality. Every one I've read can be reduced to the necessity of subjective experience.