I agree, we have certainly not discovered everything.
.
So why make statements like "science could never", I mean that's a bit like a person in 1869 saying science can't put a man on the moon, well the fact is science can and did 100years later, and the answer to putting men on the moon was more science, not a dismissal of science because at the given time they hadn't made the necessary discoveries.
For instance, under materialism, if one people say it is okay to keep chattel slaves and rape women, then another people have nothing to appeal to in order to say it is wrong to do so. This is a well-worn argument. Non-materialists repeatedly make this case, while materialist repeatedly deny it, but they have nothing but their personal preferences to appeal to --
Nope, morality is not based on opinion, its based on the well being of physical creatures (I have been through this in depth with other members here)
It can easily be shown that slavery and rape is not in the best interests of the wellbeing of the victims, and breaches some of the moral principles which have been discovered through sound logic and reasoning, and observing the physical outcomes.
We don't need to invoke the concept of a god or anything supernatural to show that those things are immoral, they can be shown to be immoral by looking at the outcomes of those actions.
I cannot remember off the top of my head, but a famous atheist author once wrote in complete candor that of all the things he disliked, he hated most the reality that the only thing that separated him from rape and slaughter was his personal dislike of the practice.
If an atheist actually said that, they are wrong, simple as that.
atheist must acknowledge that the logical outcome of his belief is that rape and slaughter are not objectively wrong, no matter how much he wants to believe that they are. If rape and slaughter are subjective, then that’s the end of it. There will always be someone who is prepared to rape and slaughter, and the materialist has no objective means to say otherwise.
As I explained above, rape is objectively wrong, and it can be shown to be wrong by the fact that it breaches moral principles which are not subjective, but which are objective.
This is not difficult; the number three. Go outside and bring in a three. Of course, you will merely say that man invented mathematics with his brain, but that is merely assuming your conclusion. Interesting isn’t it; the physical universe is
The number 3/three, is just a symbol/word humans have invented to describe something that exists in the physical world.
Everything about it is physical, from the physical things which we apply the concept to, to the original thought that invested it being an emergent property of a physical brain.
Also it must be noted, you are effectively asking me to provide you physical evidence of something not physical. I am not exactly certain how you would expect anyone to satisfy that question. This should call into mind the reasonableness of such a request.
what is the difference between something that is not physical and something that doesn't exist, I don't really understand what you mean.
it calls into question the reasonableness of your claim, you are claim something non physical exists, and the purpose for this claim is so that you can invoke supernatural answers, probably in the form of your religious concepts of gods etc.
But then when asked to explain what these existing non physical things are, you don't have an answer, except to make logical fallacies about morality and purpose not existing without it.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have
Here is my question.
Since you claim that materialists can't answer questions like "What's the meaning of life" and you don't seem to be a materialist, so you should have a better understanding of it,
What in your opinion is the meaning of life??
The reason I ask, is that atheists often get told that with our views there is not meaning of life, So in your view, what is it????
As far as I have seen no religion has come up with an answer, and the answer most atheists would say is that its a silly question, and its up to each person to give their own lives meaning, not some outside authority.