|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 7, 2018 19:40:20 GMT
tpfkar A disease isn't evil though, it seems like it, but it's pure nature and biology. If people can accept the existence of diseases as mere bacteria and a fact of science, why do they suddenly feel it becomes evil just because of the idea of both God and diseases existing? Well God's not supposed to be random & arbitrary, is he? Just because we can't understand something doesn't mean it's random. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 7, 2018 21:16:00 GMT
tpfkar Just because we can't understand something doesn't mean it's random. Well that would be the point; once you introduce God then culpability comes into play. Is he impotent to stop the ravages, or choose they be inflicted, in fact create the scourges, and even conceive and compose of the very idea of them?
never on your side |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2018 11:20:54 GMT
If it was my child then I would offer the same choice and, if the kid believed in heaven , why not use it? The suggestion of heaven, at worst is just a sop to make a bad situation seem a bit better (just as it has worked to assuage people with promises of jam tomorrow for those who suffer on earth, down the millennia). But I know that if it was me, an unbeliever from a young age and my parents had tried it on, it would actually have made things worse, since I would have guessed there was no real answer and they were likely just grasping. I guess I am not one of 'most atheists' then.
And, as an atheist I would be more deeply troubled by the fact that God deliberately created natural evil in the first place - and supposedly takes pleasure in His creation too.
A disease isn't evil though, it seems like it, but it's pure nature and biology. If people can accept the existence of diseases as mere bacteria and a fact of science, why do they suddenly feel it becomes evil just because of the idea of both God and diseases existing? Oh yes I agree my comment was from the point of view of the Bible where at one point God admits point blank to creating evil, which apologists normally weaken down to just natural evil - i.e. calamaties and disasters, whether affecting just the personal or not. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 8, 2018 13:54:45 GMT
A disease isn't evil though, it seems like it, but it's pure nature and biology. If people can accept the existence of diseases as mere bacteria and a fact of science, why do they suddenly feel it becomes evil just because of the idea of both God and diseases existing? Oh yes I agree my comment was from the point of view of the Bible where at one point God admits point blank to creating evil, which apologists normally weaken down to just natural evil - i.e. calamaties and disasters, whether affecting just the personal or not. Evil is a natural point of human life. The only perfect being is God, mankind isn't going to be perfect, mankind was created to have free will, and that includes the free will to choose to commit evil acts, including a lot of ones we tell ourselves aren't evil because we like to think we're better than we are. As much as we like to set people apart, these are good people, these are bastards, the truth is everybody has the ability to do horrible things, a lot of them just choose not to. You can't look at half the $@(% people commit and say evil doesn't exist, and you can't compare their behavior to animals' instincts and say that it's a natural evolutionary trait. Animals kill but not for the reasons nor with the depraved methods that people do. There is no way any animal tearing another's throat out or mauling another animal to death can be compared to a man breaking into someone's home and in the middle of attacking them, injects them with bleach to increase their suffering, or a man who puts weed killer in his wife's food and pretends he loves her so much while her whole insides are burning to the point of blistering, or a Japanese Imperialist soldier raping a Chinese girl to death with a bayonet and then photographing her corpse with the weapon sticking out of her genitals, or a Croatian death camp guard sawing a prisoner's head off or slamming a child's head into the wall so hard pieces of his skull break apart. Like it or not, those are all choices people made for their own sick satisfaction, they could just as easily never done those things, nothing compelled them to. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 14:20:59 GMT
tpfkar Oh yes I agree my comment was from the point of view of the Bible where at one point God admits point blank to creating evil, which apologists normally weaken down to just natural evil - i.e. calamaties and disasters, whether affecting just the personal or not. Evil is a natural point of human life. The only perfect being is God, mankind isn't going to be perfect, mankind was created to have free will, and that includes the free will to choose to commit evil acts, including a lot of ones we tell ourselves aren't evil because we like to think we're better than we are. As much as we like to set people apart, these are good people, these are bastards, the truth is everybody has the ability to do horrible things, a lot of them just choose not to. You can't look at half the $@(% people commit and say evil doesn't exist, and you can't compare their behavior to animals' instincts and say that it's a natural evolutionary trait. Animals kill but not for the reasons nor with the depraved methods that people do. There is no way any animal tearing another's throat out or mauling another animal to death can be compared to a man breaking into someone's home and in the middle of attacking them, injects them with bleach to increase their suffering, or a man who puts weed killer in his wife's food and pretends he loves her so much while her whole insides are burning to the point of blistering, or a Japanese Imperialist soldier raping a Chinese girl to death with a bayonet and then photographing her corpse with the weapon sticking out of her genitals, or a Croatian death camp guard sawing a prisoner's head off or slamming a child's head into the wall so hard pieces of his skull break apart. Like it or not, those are all choices people made for their own sick satisfaction, they could just as easily never done those things, nothing compelled them to. Evil even as a concept at all is God's thing. Every bit of the horrid you listed is all God's conception and creation. And God obviously gave some people both free will and a disinclination for "evil". Why didn't he make all that way?
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 8, 2018 14:30:40 GMT
Oh yes I agree my comment was from the point of view of the Bible where at one point God admits point blank to creating evil, which apologists normally weaken down to just natural evil - i.e. calamaties and disasters, whether affecting just the personal or not. Evil is a natural point of human life. The only perfect being is God, mankind isn't going to be perfect, mankind was created to have free will, and that includes the free will to choose to commit evil acts, including a lot of ones we tell ourselves aren't evil because we like to think we're better than we are. As much as we like to set people apart, these are good people, these are bastards, the truth is everybody has the ability to do horrible things, a lot of them just choose not to. You can't look at half the $@(% people commit and say evil doesn't exist, and you can't compare their behavior to animals' instincts and say that it's a natural evolutionary trait. Animals kill but not for the reasons nor with the depraved methods that people do. There is no way any animal tearing another's throat out or mauling another animal to death can be compared to a man breaking into someone's home and in the middle of attacking them, injects them with bleach to increase their suffering, or a man who puts weed killer in his wife's food and pretends he loves her so much while her whole insides are burning to the point of blistering, or a Japanese Imperialist soldier raping a Chinese girl to death with a bayonet and then photographing her corpse with the weapon sticking out of her genitals, or a Croatian death camp guard sawing a prisoner's head off or slamming a child's head into the wall so hard pieces of his skull break apart. Like it or not, those are all choices people made for their own sick satisfaction, they could just as easily never done those things, nothing compelled them to. I hear what you say (and enjoyed the lurid descriptions), but natural evil has nothing to do with free will.
But if you wish to dwell on free will and interpret it in the way you do, it is fair to say though that for others, notably the Calvinsts, things are not so clear cut. And we also read these lines from scripture, often conveniently forgotten:
“For it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” – Phi. 2:13
.. where your purported deity is clearly seen as the ultimate impetus behind our wills. So while He might respect our will, He still works in us to will according to His good pleasure (i.e. do whatever he wants). That is, man’s free choice or free will might be best seen in the compatibilistic sense of the term, not in the absolute sense of having a free impetus behind the will. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 8, 2018 15:25:34 GMT
Because Heaven can wait. ... Why? If Heaven is "a better place", why not get there as soon as practical? Ok, you can't commit suicide, but why not live dangerously so you get there sooner. In my mind, evolution's desire to live overrides faith. Hmmmm. I wonder why God chose mortal life anyway. Why not skip the mortal phase and go right to Heaven. Your time on Earth is finite whether you believe in life after death or not. So why wouldn't you want to experience and enjoy it a bit longer? You might as well ask, "If you believe that your life is going to continue into next week, why wouldn't you leave Disney World after you go on just one ride?" Because Disney is fun and next week is back to the same old grind. If believed that next week was going to be better than Disney, I'd leave after one ride. So if Heaven is better than the same old grind 24 hours a day, why not seek to get there as soon as possible? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 8, 2018 15:37:25 GMT
Because Heaven can wait. ... Why? If Heaven is "a better place", why not get there as soon as practical? Ok, you can't commit suicide, but why not live dangerously so you get there sooner. In my mind, evolution's desire to live overrides faith. Hmmmm. I wonder why God chose mortal life anyway. Why not skip the mortal phase and go right to Heaven. Your time on Earth is finite whether you believe in life after death or not. So why wouldn't you want to experience and enjoy it a bit longer? You might as well ask, "If you believe that your life is going to continue into next week, why wouldn't you leave Disney World after you go on just one ride?" Because Disney is fun and next week is back to the same old grind. If believed that next week was going to be better than Disney, I'd leave after one ride. So if Heaven is better than the same old grind 24 hours a day, why not seek to get there as soon as possible? So are you restricting this question to people who do not like their life on Earth? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 17:44:07 GMT
I've got a better one for hard core atheists. There's a video on Youtube from CNN about a 5 year old terminally ill child, whose parents let her pick if she wanted to go back to the hospital, which at best could only offer excruciatingly painful treatments to prolong her life, or she could stay at home for the remainder of whatever time she had left, and just go to Heaven when it was her time. A lot of atheists are VERY upset with this video and with the family's decision to let her choose, primarily because they say the parents lied to her about going to Heaven, they are very deeply troubled that a child was told she'll go to a wonderful place when she dies, even though they insist there's no form of afterlife whatsoever, so there's absolutely NO way she could ever know she was lied to. If there's nothing after this life, why would that 'lie' bother atheists who believe there's absolutely nothing once you die? How could you be so bothered by a lie that you truly believed would NEVER be found out? It really implies they think there's SOME kind of afterlife and when it doesn't live up to her expectations she'll be heartbroken. For an atheist, WHAT kind of sense does that make? I wouldn't have any problem with giving this comforting belief to the child. I'm sure plenty of atheists tell their children that Santa Claus is real, and in that case, the children will have to be disappointed one day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 17:53:49 GMT
Oh yes I agree my comment was from the point of view of the Bible where at one point God admits point blank to creating evil, which apologists normally weaken down to just natural evil - i.e. calamaties and disasters, whether affecting just the personal or not. Evil is a natural point of human life. The only perfect being is God, mankind isn't going to be perfect, mankind was created to have free will, and that includes the free will to choose to commit evil acts, including a lot of ones we tell ourselves aren't evil because we like to think we're better than we are. As much as we like to set people apart, these are good people, these are bastards, the truth is everybody has the ability to do horrible things, a lot of them just choose not to. You can't look at half the $@(% people commit and say evil doesn't exist, and you can't compare their behavior to animals' instincts and say that it's a natural evolutionary trait. Animals kill but not for the reasons nor with the depraved methods that people do. There is no way any animal tearing another's throat out or mauling another animal to death can be compared to a man breaking into someone's home and in the middle of attacking them, injects them with bleach to increase their suffering, or a man who puts weed killer in his wife's food and pretends he loves her so much while her whole insides are burning to the point of blistering, or a Japanese Imperialist soldier raping a Chinese girl to death with a bayonet and then photographing her corpse with the weapon sticking out of her genitals, or a Croatian death camp guard sawing a prisoner's head off or slamming a child's head into the wall so hard pieces of his skull break apart. Like it or not, those are all choices people made for their own sick satisfaction, they could just as easily never done those things, nothing compelled them to. Free will doesn't exist. Every choice made by every person is the product of a complex chain of causality that started at the inception of the universe. Did you choose your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc? You can't choose which thoughts to think before you think them, and no choice can ever be uncaused. You can't direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind. Even if you posited the existence of an immaterial soul, then there would have to be something causing the soul to choose the way it did, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore if God exists and evil exists, evil is inherent in God's design for the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 17:59:03 GMT
tpfkar Evil is a natural point of human life. The only perfect being is God, mankind isn't going to be perfect, mankind was created to have free will, and that includes the free will to choose to commit evil acts, including a lot of ones we tell ourselves aren't evil because we like to think we're better than we are. As much as we like to set people apart, these are good people, these are bastards, the truth is everybody has the ability to do horrible things, a lot of them just choose not to. You can't look at half the $@(% people commit and say evil doesn't exist, and you can't compare their behavior to animals' instincts and say that it's a natural evolutionary trait. Animals kill but not for the reasons nor with the depraved methods that people do. There is no way any animal tearing another's throat out or mauling another animal to death can be compared to a man breaking into someone's home and in the middle of attacking them, injects them with bleach to increase their suffering, or a man who puts weed killer in his wife's food and pretends he loves her so much while her whole insides are burning to the point of blistering, or a Japanese Imperialist soldier raping a Chinese girl to death with a bayonet and then photographing her corpse with the weapon sticking out of her genitals, or a Croatian death camp guard sawing a prisoner's head off or slamming a child's head into the wall so hard pieces of his skull break apart. Like it or not, those are all choices people made for their own sick satisfaction, they could just as easily never done those things, nothing compelled them to. Free will doesn't exist. Every choice made by every person is the product of a complex chain of causality that started at the inception of the universe. Did you choose your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc? You can't choose which thoughts to think before you think them, and no choice can ever be uncaused. You can't direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind. Even if you posited the existence of an immaterial soul, then there would have to be something causing the soul to choose the way it did, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore if God exists and evil exists, evil is inherent in God's design for the universe. Nobody without an axe to grind ever thought the infinite regression of choosing "your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc" or to "direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind". However we got as we are, we are us, and we make choices nonstop according to who we are, what we want, etc., the very definition for "free will". God being a bastard for making things the way they are when he didn't have to doesn't make the bastards he created any less bastards, nor does it mean they aren't making choices based on their wants, character, and characteristics, however they got that way.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 18:04:03 GMT
tpfkar Free will doesn't exist. Every choice made by every person is the product of a complex chain of causality that started at the inception of the universe. Did you choose your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc? You can't choose which thoughts to think before you think them, and no choice can ever be uncaused. You can't direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind. Even if you posited the existence of an immaterial soul, then there would have to be something causing the soul to choose the way it did, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore if God exists and evil exists, evil is inherent in God's design for the universe. Nobody without an axe to grind ever thought the infinite regression of choosing "your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc" or to "direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind". However we got as we are, we are us, and we make choices nonstop according to who we are, what we want, etc., the very definition for "free will". God being a bastard for making things the way they are when he didn't have to doesn't make the bastards he created any less bastards, nor does it mean they aren't making choices based on their wants, character, and characteristics, however they got that way.
Does Free Will Exist?Christian theology needs absolute free will that is independent of causality. Without that form of free will, evil cannot be the fault of mankind, and a lottery determines who will accept Christ as saviour. Nobody would suggest that they aren't "making choices based on their wants, character, and characteristics", but none of that is any different from what would happen in a deterministic universe without what you call "free will". |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 18:13:40 GMT
tpfkar Nobody without an axe to grind ever thought the infinite regression of choosing "your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc" or to "direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind". However we got as we are, we are us, and we make choices nonstop according to who we are, what we want, etc., the very definition for "free will". God being a bastard for making things the way they are when he didn't have to doesn't make the bastards he created any less bastards, nor does it mean they aren't making choices based on their wants, character, and characteristics, however they got that way.
Does Free Will Exist?Christian theology needs absolute free will that is independent of causality. Without that form of free will, evil cannot be the fault of mankind, and a lottery determines who will accept Christ as saviour. Nobody would suggest that they aren't "making choices based on their wants, character, and characteristics", but none of that is any different from what would happen in a deterministic universe without what you call "free will". No, you give them free will as an "argument". Having free will is meaningless as God obviously creates peeps both with free will and with what's needed to get in heaven - he just arbitrarily creates some with all the combination needed and some without. And cause and effect in no what impacts free will, as we're all part and parcel of it, clipping along, doing our thing. And if one actually believes that no actual choice exists, then trying to convince them or anyone of anything one way or another is high irrationality.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 18:19:44 GMT
tpfkar Christian theology needs absolute free will that is independent of causality. Without that form of free will, evil cannot be the fault of mankind, and a lottery determines who will accept Christ as saviour. Nobody would suggest that they aren't "making choices based on their wants, character, and characteristics", but none of that is any different from what would happen in a deterministic universe without what you call "free will". No, you give them free will as an "argument". Having free will is meaningless as God obviously creates peeps both with free will and with what's needed to get in heaven - he just arbitrarily creates some with all the combination needed and some without. And cause and effect in no what impacts free will, as we're all part and parcel of it, clipping along, doing our thing. And if one actually believes that no actual choice exists, then trying to convince them or anyone of anything one way or another is high irrationality.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceYou know where I stand on that, but this time events outside of my control have determined that I'm going to refrain from hijacking the thread to reiterate the same points for the several hundredth time. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 18:28:21 GMT
tpfkar No, you give them free will as an "argument". Having free will is meaningless as God obviously creates peeps both with free will and with what's needed to get in heaven - he just arbitrarily creates some with all the combination needed and some without. And cause and effect in no what impacts free will, as we're all part and parcel of it, clipping along, doing our thing. And if one actually believes that no actual choice exists, then trying to convince them or anyone of anything one way or another is high irrationality.
Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their DivorceYou know where I stand on that, but this time events outside of my control have determined that I'm going to refrain from hijacking the thread to reiterate the same points for the several hundredth time. Sure, I understand you choose to work really hard to get people to choose to change, while simultaneously holding no real choice actually exists. Or as you allude, you know that's kind of way out there, but your hands are doing what they were destined to do since (before?) (the beginning of?) time, regardless of what your brain might be asking of them. As far as "hijacking", you make an assertion, I can disagree with it. Probably will for any I find to be particularly funny. 
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 8, 2018 19:12:48 GMT
Free will doesn't exist. Every choice made by every person is the product of a complex chain of causality that started at the inception of the universe. Did you choose your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc? You can't choose which thoughts to think before you think them, and no choice can ever be uncaused. You can't direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind. Even if you posited the existence of an immaterial soul, then there would have to be something causing the soul to choose the way it did, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore if God exists and evil exists, evil is inherent in God's design for the universe. So what FORCED you to just give that answer since you couldn't choose it for yourself? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 19:26:54 GMT
Free will doesn't exist. Every choice made by every person is the product of a complex chain of causality that started at the inception of the universe. Did you choose your own disposition, your upbringing, the events to which you have been exposed to in your life, etc? You can't choose which thoughts to think before you think them, and no choice can ever be uncaused. You can't direct your brain to think a thought before the thought exists in your conscious mind. Even if you posited the existence of an immaterial soul, then there would have to be something causing the soul to choose the way it did, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore if God exists and evil exists, evil is inherent in God's design for the universe. So what FORCED you to just give that answer since you couldn't choose it for yourself? A chain of causality leading up to that point, and over which I exerted no control, forced me to give that answer. Although since I wasn't able to follow the entire chain of causality (and didn't even exist for most of it), many of the causes were opaque to me and it felt as though I had a choice not to answer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 19:42:20 GMT
tpfkar You know where I stand on that, but this time events outside of my control have determined that I'm going to refrain from hijacking the thread to reiterate the same points for the several hundredth time. Sure, I understand you choose to work really hard to get people to choose to change, while simultaneously holding no real choice actually exists. Or as you allude, you know that's kind of way out there, but your hands are doing what they were destined to do since (before?) (the beginning of?) time, regardless of what your brain might be asking of them. As far as "hijacking", you make an assertion, I can disagree with it. Probably will for any I find to be particularly funny.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Alright, well I don't understand what you consider to be different about the way decisions get made compared to how I think about decisions come to be made. Merely that your way contains 'free will', which seemingly cannot be isolated from the deterministic process that I've outlined. I don't think that you understand either. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 19:52:23 GMT
tpfkar Sure, I understand you choose to work really hard to get people to choose to change, while simultaneously holding no real choice actually exists. Or as you allude, you know that's kind of way out there, but your hands are doing what they were destined to do since (before?) (the beginning of?) time, regardless of what your brain might be asking of them. As far as "hijacking", you make an assertion, I can disagree with it. Probably will for any I find to be particularly funny.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Alright, well I don't understand what you consider to be different about the way decisions get made compared to how I think about decisions come to be made. Merely that your way contains 'free will', which seemingly cannot be isolated from the deterministic process that I've outlined. I don't think that you understand either. I know you don't understand "much", not even you own mind.  It comes down to you fielding "deterministic" to impute some magic upon the non-remarkable cause & effect, of which we're all a constituent part of. "Free will", for anyone without tendentious purpose just means that we do what we choose according to our desires and our characteristics. You just think you can field "deterministic yields no free will", for your purposeful, incoherent definition of free will, as you say as a weapon against religion, even though you behave completely irrationally for someone who actually believes no real choice exists. We're the product of our inputs and our doings, as is easily known by the minimally competent and noncontroversial for all not trying to work something out of it.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 20:04:10 GMT
tpfkar Alright, well I don't understand what you consider to be different about the way decisions get made compared to how I think about decisions come to be made. Merely that your way contains 'free will', which seemingly cannot be isolated from the deterministic process that I've outlined. I don't think that you understand either. I know you don't understand "much", not even you own mind. It comes down to you fielding "deterministic" to impute some magic upon the non-remarkable cause & effect, of which we're all a constituent part of. "Free will", for anyone without tendentious purpose just means that we do what we choose according to our desires and our characteristics. You just think you can field "deterministic yields no free will", for your purposeful, incoherent definition of free will, as you say as a weapon against religion, even though you behave completely irrationally for someone who actually believes no real choice exists. We're the product of our inputs and our doings, as is easily known by the minimally competent and noncontroversial for all not trying to work something out of it.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.If you actually understood properly, you wouldn't think that there was anything irrational about me trying to convince people on the Internet to have beliefs tomorrow which are different from what they are today, because nothing that I've stated implies that a person's opinions remain static throughout their life. Any definition of 'free will' other than that which posits that human minds operate independently of causality is not sufficient for Christians to shift blame from God on to humanity (or claim that absolutely anyone can become 'saved'). Therefore, novastar (and other Christians) are clearly alluding to a version of free will which you are suggesting that you don't believe exists, but aren't being very clear about because you perhaps don't want to reject it even though you can ostensibly see that it is incoherent. And from your response it comes across as though you are conceding that novastar's interpretation of free will (the incoherent one that would need to exist in order to support her beliefs) is a verifiable aspect of reality. |
|
