it has everything to do with an analytical perspective. Using an AP, it is how you take apart the intital statement which I found to be incorrect in it's indefinite nature.

From an analytical perspective, we need to think of the reason why we had to choose? How come we were put in that position to make that choice? There isn't a rational background to why we must make the option, therefore before making a philosophical decision we must gain more insight and knowledge about the matter first.

it depends on the form of democracy you are talking about. Democracy is vague. You need to be quite more specific.

you are not accounting for the fact that nature can create machines, but machines can't create nature.

said — Michael

you attempt to use philosophical bivalence as an argument point, but I believe that it is currently irrelevant to the current conversation as said that was trying to remove the fact of bivalence from the discussion as it would perpetrate a right or wrong opinion.

you claim that meaning can be permanent, which I disagreed with. Metaphysical conditions change over time and therefore as the philosophy behind the meaning of life, demonstrated by the ardent philosopher Hume, can change.

Hume also says that we are only told to believe it but our understanding of the different physical elements could change as our knowledge of philosophical stance changes from what we were initially taught.

don't forget that God is omnipresent and omnievident.

what if the logical reasoning behind the metaphysical elements in th context also be not just physically but also in a mental sense behind the evidence. If it is not so, why are we to believe it?

First, you have to think about the motives of Shkreli raising the price. Did he have information that other companies would soon have access to the drug? Was the usage of the drug decreasing so he would have to raise the price to make up for the last profit? These are just some of the many questions behind raising the price of the drug.

the quote

Hawkings mused idly in his Brief History of Time that if we hit upon the 'grand theory' then we would 'know the mind of God' - which I see as hubris, especially coming from a professed atheist. But then, maybe the reason why he and his ilk hate religion is professional jealousy ;-)

doesn't answer the question by using a biased form of uncorrelated evidence from the prominent atheist, Stephen Hawking, so I believe this insufficiently strays from the original question.

I also agree with this statement

yes

neverless, I still feel obliged to give you some supporting evidence to my statement.

copying and pasting does not help the growth of this philosophical forum, many members have been here for a long time and it shows a lack of knowledge to quote without s purpose. quod erat demonstrandum

quod erat demonstrandum

I think we can credit this to advancements such as modern philosophers like Hume and N.T. Wright providing logical reasons for the advancement of personal knowledge and belief.

what if the metaphysical elements relating to the evidence do not allow you to escape the current moment? Unfortunately the logical fallacy proven has shown Hume's theory to insufficiently describe this moment.

Jokes on you, atheists! I have a degree in Christology and enough historical and theological evidence to prove that God exists.

I feel emotions are becoming more and more unnecessary in today's world due to the rising popularity of social media and devices. Philosophy is becoming less important.

I agree with this intelligent young man