Moderator: Dan~
Prismatic567 wrote:Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value
I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.
Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.
Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.
Anomaly654 wrote:Refute this notion of truth
Anomaly654 wrote:I take the position that truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality. For the most part it’s there and we find it. We can also ‘create’ our own subjective, mutable truths, for instance a consensus of human minds decide the shape, design, inscriptions and materials used to print bills and stamp coins. Certain denominations thus have attributable value. Attributable value can be falsified or removed from individual components of currency by destruction, defacing, etc. Following this example, truth seems strongly associated with design.
Anomaly654 wrote:Arguments against the idea of truth as preexistent in reality typically center on the claim that value requires an intellect. Some would argue that any mind is sufficient, i.e., higher animals, the claim goes, also perceive value and impose it into their existence the same as humans. This view is controversial unproven, and I take the position that only a mind with at minimum intellectual capability (human or higher) is able to in any sense impose or apprehend value.
Anomaly654 wrote:The manifest problem of course is that the so-called “serious metaphysician” is expected to limit himself to natural explanations. I’m a theist and freely accept the ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) so-called for lack of a better designation, is, by this standard, essentially a theology. But I also believe this view has analytical coherence whose function can be traced from hypothesis to instantiation in factual existence.
Anomaly654 wrote:It seems to me dismissal of MIV on the basis that no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists so the hypothesis has to be rejected, while commonly accepted today, is nonetheless circular and prevents one from giving objective consideration to the evidence. Specific critiques of MIV are welcome.
Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value
I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.
Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.
Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.
Hi Prismatic. Thanks for responding.
Here is the definition I use for MIV:
Value
Truth and falsity are the two dynamic denominations of value inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being” from which value—often formulated as goods and evils—derives.
Truth function
Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., particulars, properties and relations.
The power of truth to induce proper function between existents operates under the administration of external force (Form) in various modes, resulting in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of characteristic functions and goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. Falsity is truth corrupted and stands in natural opposition to it.
You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?
Silhouette wrote:Anomaly654 wrote:Refute this notion of truthThis paragraph would appear to contain the conclusion, that "truth is pre-existent in the fabric of reality". The mention of the possibility of subjective truth appears to be an auxiliary case, not fundamental to your argument but supporting of it.
You either over thought the op or I didn’t communicate clearly.
Yes, conclusion is truth is pre-existent in the fabric of reality. I used an example of the existence of subjective truth to suggest that the two—objective, absolute pre-existent truth and mutable subjective truth are compatible features of the same reality. In retrospect, it should have been left out. Didn’t present it clearly, failed to provide examples and the inclusion of attributable subjective truth wasn’t necessary to the request for refutation of the conclusion.This paragraph suggests that counter arguments are regularly invalid - thereby at least supporting your position if not proving it.
So you do not subscribe to the idea that "value requires an intellect", and go on to clarify that minds would at least need to be human in order to value in such a way - an auxiliary supporting point once again.
Is this premise intended to set up a proof by contradiction? That value requires intellect?
No, just trying to flesh out what I understand to be typical views of truth as starting point for discussion. Most require a mind as prerequisite to value. I agree with the premise, but assume some may argue that a mind isn’t needed; I’d like to hear those arguments. I also believe value requires a mind. Obviously, if truth is a pre-existent component of reality, it couldn’t have come from a human mind.
Within philosophy particularly and the non-philosophical world generally, it appears truth is assumed to be entirely a feature of human minds. I recall reading an argument some years ago by someone who included any intelligent mind as recognizers/formulators of truth. Hence the mention of varieties of minds relative to value.Is this the second premise? That so-called serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations?
Is this meant to be counter to the premise that value requires intellect?
No, I read a paper recently in which it was put forth roughly that “serious metaphysicians” limited themselves to naturalist methodology. It was included 1) to see if the notion prompted agreement or dispute, 2) to contrast what I take to be the status quo position with the implications raised by MIV.It seems that here we attempt the argument:
P1) no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists
P2) (supposed) objective consideration requires this
therefore it is not objectively the case that there is no mind capable of imposing value into reality
Here valuation heavily privileges objective criteria over subjective, as though objective valuation is the primary criterium, which of course is circular: if you presume objective truth and value, and require objective truth and value in order to disprove this, then of course you are "begging the question".
So in conclusion, I do not see a valid syllogism that shows contradiction through:
1) value requires an intellect
2) serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations
to
3) truth is pre-existent in the fabric of reality
Prismatic567 wrote:Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value
I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.
Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.
Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.
Hi Prismatic. Thanks for responding.
Here is the definition I use for MIV:
Value
Truth and falsity are the two dynamic denominations of value inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being” from which value—often formulated as goods and evils—derives.
Truth function
Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., particulars, properties and relations.
The power of truth to induce proper function between existents operates under the administration of external force (Form) in various modes, resulting in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of characteristic functions and goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. Falsity is truth corrupted and stands in natural opposition to it.
You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?
How is my definition of value and MIV being reduced to survival wrong?
Note truth and falsity are also reducible to survival if you know how to navigate philosophically via the complex labyrinth down to the source.
Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Anomaly654 wrote:You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?
How is my definition of value and MIV being reduced to survival wrong?
Note truth and falsity are also reducible to survival if you know how to navigate philosophically via the complex labyrinth down to the source.
I didn't say your view was wrong. I believe using the MIV mentioned in the op I can provide evidence that your view is correct, or that it stands in some demonstrable state of legitimacy. I only noted that your and my approach are opposites and that in stating your view of value there was no refutation of the idea that value pre-exists human minds because it's found woven into reality.
Prismatic567 wrote:Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:I have argued elsewhere, there is no value - absolute, objective, - that is independent of the human conditions.
This is reflected in the arguments between the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists [mine] views.
Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.
The tendency towards any 'value' independent and pre-exists human beings is a psychological issue which is reducible to survival individually and collectively.
Anomaly654 wrote:Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?
Anomaly654 wrote:I'm no philosopher but it seems to me that if one answers either true or false to the above questions it suggests that value existed in reality from day one. To suggest that the questions can't be answered because there was no value in reality until minds evolved to endorse it seems to me the intellectual equivalent of covering one's ears and chanting 'nyah, nyah, nyah…" in order to make the questions go away. How would you approach this?
Silhouette wrote:Just to be pedantic, scientific laws break down at "ground zero" of the Big Bang. It's more like they were converged to just after it - so we already have an example of truth, at least in the form of scientific laws, not pre-existing in the universe right there.
More generally speaking, just as dissecting the brain and finding no consciousness, finding no algorithms deep inside a circuit board, or manipulating a flower and finding no intrinsic colour, discovering no coldness at the essence of a snowflake, or drilling to the centre of the earth and finding no centre of gravity, we attribute truth to reality. We don't find truth in it. We discover ways in which to model the world that describe and predict it to a certain degree of accuracy. Calling 4 "4" and 8 "8" is just seeing a shape, making a noise, and saying it and some arrangement of reality are the same. It's then no shock that, given our association, we find our association is correct when 4 + 4 = 8. Circular.
What if there was so much more to reality than we could apparently perceive of it? More than extra dimensions, but entirely revolutionary versions of perception that we could never even possibly conceive? What if we see only the very tip of the iceberg? If we have any access to "truth preexistent in reality" we are complacent beyond belief to think it's anything more than an iota - if at all. In fact, a theory I have landed upon, and take really very seriously is that it's lies and falsity that give meaning to anything - not truth. Truth says nothing, it's tautology. But when we say "that is a tree" and point to a tree, the word tree isn't what we're pointing at, we're not touching anything, you have to understand the gesture of pointing as following a line from the finger to the first general arrangment of presumed common sensation and pattern recognition as the intended subject of conversation... there are so many factors to distort the fact that "it seems like something exists" into something that means anything to anyone. The understanding of truth at all requires this, paradoxically, and it needs a mind for all the sense data to be passed into to even exist as a concept, nevermind relate to anything at all in the first place.
Anomaly654 wrote:Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?
I'm no philosopher but it seems to me that if one answers either true or false to the above questions it suggests that value existed in reality from day one. To suggest that the questions can't be answered because there was no value in reality until minds evolved to endorse it seems to me the intellectual equivalent of covering one's ears and chanting 'nyah, nyah, nyah…" in order to make the questions go away. How would you approach this?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Prismatic567 wrote:Anomaly654 wrote:Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a group of scientists. Therefore there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on Earth.
4 + 4 = 8 is a priori, i.e. not a posteriori.
In this case, it is true before you or most people were born, but there no such truth without any humans [past and evolved] involved.
Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Anomaly654 wrote:Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a group of scientists. Therefore there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on Earth.
4 + 4 = 8 is a priori, i.e. not a posteriori.
In this case, it is true before you or most people were born, but there no such truth without any humans [past and evolved] involved.
Okay, couple questions.
1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists in some galaxy in the universe an as yet undiscovered solar system consisting of a sun, four planets and two moons.
According to the above, is the position you take that there is no such system with that number of bodies until it's discovered by at least one perceiving mind?
2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the ]universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?
1. Empirically and rationally possible
2. Empirically and rationally impossible
Are you an idealist?
Prismatic567 wrote: Note the points;
1. Empirically and rationally possible
2. Empirically and rationally impossible
If you note the question you raised in 1 above, all bolded items are related to empirically-related variables which has proven to exist as far as observed and verified.
Thus it is possible for such an empirically-possible world to exist say 100 light years away from Earth.
To confirm whether such a place exists, it is the question of bringing in the empirical evidence.
If you insist God is that bearded man in the sky, I can agree that is a possibility, but to confirm, bring the empirical evidence [bolded are empirical] for verification.
However the ultimate God that is claimed by the Abrahamic is non-empirical nor rational, thus impossible to be verified as real.
See my argument; viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
There is no possible world in which it is always absolutely better to attain to higher truth states because the ultimate truth state is absolute perfection.
I don't really know what to make of this. Either you are using the idea of truth being reality as inAnomaly654 wrote:Refute this notion of truth
I take the position that truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality.
But then it is not in reality, it is reality.: the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote: Note the points;
1. Empirically and rationally possible
2. Empirically and rationally impossible
If you note the question you raised in 1 above, all bolded items are related to empirically-related variables which has proven to exist as far as observed and verified.
Thus it is possible for such an empirically-possible world to exist say 100 light years away from Earth.
To confirm whether such a place exists, it is the question of bringing in the empirical evidence.
But you've sidestepped my questions completely. Again:
1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists in some galaxy in the universe an as yet undiscovered solar system consisting of a sun, four planets and two moons. According to the above, is the position you take that there is no such system with that number of bodies until it's discovered by at least one perceiving mind?
2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?
Would you please limit your next post to answering these specific questions for the sake of forward-moving discussion?
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I don't really know what to make of this. Either you are using the idea of truth being reality as in: the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY But then it is not in reality, it is reality.
[/quote]truth…in the sense it is used in philosophy
…would be something like an idea or assertion or conclusion or belief about reality that is correct, that matches reality. In this case truth and reality are not in the same type of category. The truths are about reality. They point toward it and describe it. So they are not in reality 'out there' but in minds and in communication between minds. Of course minds are in reality, so truths would be in reality. But only that part. The mind part. The communication part.
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe I have answered the above.
Note conventionally and scientifically, I am not saying "there is no such system until it is discovered by one perceiving mind".
My take would be, it is possible [empirically] for such a system to exists.
2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?
The universe was formed and is still forming based on the human-justified Theory of the Big Bang which is merely a speculative and is an untestable theory.
You cannot presume there are certain existing scientific laws before they are discovered by human scientists.
What is scientific is conditioned upon the existence of human producing those scientific laws.
Therefore if no humans, there are no scientific laws. Note Kant has argued strongly for this point.
I think we need a very clear definition of truth. Since you quote that definition of truth - one amongst a few - I need to repeat that truth is not in reality, but is reality, by that definition.Anomaly654 wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote: I don't really know what to make of this. Either you are using the idea of truth being reality as in: the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY But then it is not in reality, it is reality.
Yes, I hypothesize that truth is real.
I don't know what this means. Some of this is empirical, some is not.Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc.
Some of it is non-empirical, some is.I understand the discord this idea raises in philosophy proper. It proposes that a non-empirical quality is essentially the “glue” that binds all of reality, empirical and non-empirical, together.
I don't know what a serious metaphysician is, but since what you describe is just one kind of metaphysics, I don't see philosophy ruling out what you are saying, whatever it is.I noted in the op the status quo idea that the “serious metaphysician” limits his inquiry to the natural sphere. I’m self taught and unqualified to be a serious metaphysician; hence my hypothesis.
If there was a philoosphical orthodoxy, then there would be a consensus. I don't see this.Understood that philosophical orthodoxy keep empirical and non-empirical at arm’s length in separate categories.
Some think attributes are empircal. Soem think things are. So you are not distinguishing your ideas from what philosophers might put forward as true.This seems based on the idea that matter is the primary reality—many call the material the “actual” world as you noted also. I take the position that abstract information is the primary reality because it occurred to me years ago that thing and attribute had to have some recognizable connection and only thing I could come up with is that both offer information to perception.
I think, but I am not sure, that you are conflating truths with things like universals or laws.On the other hand, a value-endued reality has a lot of interesting (to me anyway) connections. The notion of truth as just a feature of propositions or beliefs rises to a much larger role as a value mechanism for all existence.
I don't know his work, but I just read a summary and he seems to view truth as a propositional something. Like a stone is not a truth. Though it is real.From the starting point “How would Avicenna’s idea that truth is a component of reality (essence) work? How would that play out?”, the conclusion I came to is that there are a number of interesting logical scenarios just on the secular side of things, probably the most significant of which is that value can be mapped to cognition as the prime mover of human behaviour.
I think it's probably not useful to posit yourself as raining rebellious notions that will feel threatening to the status quo. 1) I don't think you are correct about the orthodoxy or that there is one in the way you mean and 2) there sure as hell isn't one here. A read of anyone from Ecmandu, to Unwrong, to myself - when I venture into my own beliefs in metaphysics which I rarely do but have done - to Artimas and more...will show ideas that if there is anything like a set of ideas that are orthodox in philosophy, they do not control the range of ideas presented here. IOW I do not think it is useful to frame the issue as people are resisting your ideas because they threaten their need to back some philosophical consensus.There are even more possibilities on the theological side. I can only imagine where the mechanism of value could go in the mind of an actual philosopher, but suspect no one dare buck the status quo.
Anomaly654 wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:I believe I have answered the above.
Note conventionally and scientifically, I am not saying "there is no such system until it is discovered by one perceiving mind".
My take would be, it is possible [empirically] for such a system to exists.
So once empirically discovered, was it true that such a system preexisted its discovery?
2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?The universe was formed and is still forming based on the human-justified Theory of the Big Bang which is merely a speculative and is an untestable theory.
Actually, it appears to me the BB has been mathematically tested and moved from "speculative" to "probable". I find it revealing that you're retreating from the assuredness of your faith in science to "speculative" and "untestable". You're quite a dancer.
You cannot presume there are certain existing scientific laws before they are discovered by human scientists.
I don't presume this. We're informed of it by science. It is suggested by empirically tested means that these laws were necessarily in place from essentially the beginning of the BB to form the universe that we see now. This seems to be the doctrine currently employed.
What is scientific is conditioned upon the existence of human producing those scientific laws.
Therefore if no humans, there are no scientific laws. Note Kant has argued strongly for this point.
I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn't a religion. Thanks for your participation, Prism.
Anomaly654 wrote:On the other hand, a value-endued reality has a lot of interesting (to me anyway) connections. The notion of truth as just a feature of propositions or beliefs rises to a much larger role as a value mechanism for all existence. From the starting point “How would Avicenna’s idea that truth is a component of reality (essence) work? How would that play out?”, the conclusion I came to is that there are a number of interesting logical scenarios just on the secular side of things, probably the most significant of which is that value can be mapped to cognition as the prime mover of human behaviour.
There are even more possibilities on the theological side. I can only imagine where the mechanism of value could go in the mind of an actual philosopher, but suspect no one dare buck the status quo.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think we need a very clear definition of truth.
Since you quote that definition of truth - one amongst a few - I need to repeat that truth is not in reality, but is reality, by that definition.
I don't know what this means. Some of this is empirical, some is not.
Some think attributes are empircal. Soem think things are. So you are not distinguishing your ideas from what philosophers might put forward as true.
I think, but I am not sure, that you are conflating truths with things like universals or laws.
Like with the latter that there are rules for the behavior of stuff we experience and we don't experience those rules, we deduce them. But the truths would be the assertions of those laws, for example, not the patterns/rules out there in reality. I am not making a metaphysical assertion here and so disagreeing with you. I am making a language based criticism. I htink, but I am not sure, you are using the words poorly.
I don't know his [Avicenna's] work, but I just read a summary and he seems to view truth as a propositional something. Like a stone is not a truth. Though it is real.
I think it's probably not useful to posit yourself as raining rebellious notions that will feel threatening to the status quo. I do not think it is useful to frame the issue as people are resisting your ideas because they threaten their need to back some philosophical consensus.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]