My argument against materialism

[tsig]

A most eloquent, summary of, I presume, a materialist position.
I have little to argue with here, in principle. However your conclusion that the existence of a creator and associated religious phenomena, are essentially a developmental/evolutionary 'by product', a primitive intellectual phase along the road to civilisation and clarity of understanding of reality.
Does not address what are to me the more pressing issues in a debate such as this.
My first thought was regarding "came about completely by natural processes"

I wonder where did it come from?
How did it arise?
Are the natural processes the laws of physics?
Where did the laws of physics come from?
Did they arise fully formed?
Maybe the laws of physics are 'universal'?
How could this be?
If so from whence did they come?
etc. (this can be a very long list).

Perhaps I could suggest one or two more pressing thoughts than these;

Maybe a creator has created a perfect natural universe?, in which all that humanity can conceive of and discuss is included. Why not?

Or perhaps such a universe might appear out of 'nowhere'?

Can we rely on our certainty through science, of our material universe ordered by the principles known as the laws of physics.
Laws which have been arrived at alongside the same human frailties as (apparently) the concept of God and religious life?

These are just a few thoughts on reading your post.

Nowhere do I see the existence or not of a 'creator' being addressed.

The laws of physics can be tested and proved to work independent of the beliefs of the tester. Religion exists solely in the mind of the believer and is incapable of being tested.

 

[tsig]

That's odd - I clicked on 'Reply with quote' and a completely different post came up.

Anyway, I would be grateful if you could explain this a bit further; I'm not quite sure what you mean. Thank you.

Those who believe that human consciousness is something special always seem to dismiss the real world in favor of some will-o-the-wisp idea that the world is a construct of the human mind. They invent words like 'qualia' to hide their reality denial.

 

[punshhh]

The laws of physics can be tested and proved to work independent of the beliefs of the tester. Religion exists solely in the mind of the believer and is incapable of being tested.

Does that also include the conditioning of the tester?

Where did the laws of physics originate? etc etc.

Religion in reality is a lifestyle choice, it rarely addresses the existence of a creator, that is assumed.

 

[Robin]

Maybe a creator has created a perfect natural universe?, in which all that humanity can conceive of and discuss is included. Why not?

Or perhaps such a universe might appear out of 'nowhere'?

Again, semantics get in the way of framing the question properly.

Even if there is a creator then the universe still came out of nowhere, if you think about it.

Because a creator cannot be anywhere.

Maybe you meant "came out of nothing".

But this would imply that you were using temporal thinking for what would necessarily be a non-temporal problem.

And that is to assume that there is a problem. But we don't know that. Nobody has demonstrated that the Universe had to "come out" of anything at all.

So rather than say "the Universe came out from nothing" we could alternately suggest "the Universe did not come from anything".

 

[punshhh]

Cool!



That's not what evidence is.

Evidence is something which is more likely under one hypothesis than another.

If you have zero observations which are more likely under Theory A than any other theory, you have zero evidence for Theory A.

You can in theory establish that Theory A is logically possible, but absolutely nobody here is arguing that idealism is logically impossible. We're all embracing the fact that it is logically possible, then dismissing idealism as a theory because there is no evidence for it.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you about my use of evidence. I'm not proposing to present any evidence for anything.

 

[dlorde]

Do you really believe that any contributors to this forum actually think that any machine can 'think'? Even non-technical people like me know with absolute certainty that all machines are programmed by people.

Depends exactly what you mean by 'think'. Machines have been programmed to do many of the tasks commonly associated with thinking, including being creative.

 

[punshhh]

Again I ask you to prove the existence of any infinite quantity, anywhere.



Imagination, then.

By its nature it can't be proven either way. My point in this thread is that the possibility of an unbounded infinity in relation to physical reality or existence, is not addressed by materialism

"imagination, then".

Not entirely material( as material is currently understood)

 

[punshhh]

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess”.

In my opinion such a Subcontractors and Commiteess cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.

However one may be able to study Subcontractors and Commiteesss creation (the known universe) as an example/expression of the nature of Subcontractors and Commiteess, especially as the existence of Subcontractors and Commiteess is assumed in the OP.

Hence I conclude that this omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess would be infinitely ‘involved’ in any and every aspect of his creation (the known universe) fully at any and all points of time (with all that this may imply).

As such the known universe could in theory be ‘read as a book’ or ‘story’. The subject of which would be the nature of Subcontractors and Commiteess expressed in finite form.

This is a kind of empiricist view I suppose and is to me an interesting line of inquiry.

I appreciate what you say about uses of infinity in math’s. I have little knowledge of such things, however I would think that an omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess if one exists would be far ‘removed/irrevelent’ from/to such work".

Have you considered at any point how an omnipotent God/creator might manifest in the known universe?

 

[Nonpareil]

By its nature it can't be proven either way. My point in this thread is that the possibility of an unbounded infinity in relation to physical reality or existence, is not addressed by materialism

Why should it be? You haven't given any examples of an actual infinity that needs to be addressed.

 

[Halfcentaur]

HalfCentaur #391

Super post - every line of which I find clear and logical.

I am following all the posts here, and hoping some of the more difficult bits will sink in, It's all very interesting.

Thanks a lot. I was worried it was too long, but I was following a train of thought all the way through as best as I could.

A most eloquent, summary of, I presume, a materialist position.
I have little to argue with here, in principle. However your conclusion that the existence of a creator and associated religious phenomena, are essentially a developmental/evolutionary 'by product', a primitive intellectual phase along the road to civilisation and clarity of understanding of reality.
Does not address what are to me the more pressing issues in a debate such as this.
My first thought was regarding "came about completely by natural processes"

I wonder where did it come from?
How did it arise?
Are the natural processes the laws of physics?
Where did the laws of physics come from?
Did they arise fully formed?
Maybe the laws of physics are 'universal'?
How could this be?
If so from whence did they come?
etc. (this can be a very long list).

Perhaps I could suggest one or two more pressing thoughts than these;

Maybe a creator has created a perfect natural universe?, in which all that humanity can conceive of and discuss is included. Why not?

Or perhaps such a universe might appear out of 'nowhere'?

Can we rely on our certainty through science, of our material universe ordered by the principles known as the laws of physics.
Laws which have been arrived at alongside the same human frailties as (apparently) the concept of God and religious life?

These are just a few thoughts on reading your post.

Nowhere do I see the existence or not of a 'creator' being addressed.

I think there's a real danger in reductionist thinking when you start to reduce things to the point of "what if we're not even really here" .

At some point, things just must be. As a child it often drove me crazy trying to assume an alternative to anything happening at all. The absence of everything.

The universe is here, and things are happening. We accept a lot of processes as simply being the processes they are as the behavior of reality for some reason or another. If you touch some things, they move, but some things don't. Water evaporates. Fluid goes all over the place while solids do not. There is a difference between seeing and smelling. There's a difference between a well lit room and a room without light. Some reasons are more acceptable as just being what they are than others I suppose.

For me, there is just a natural behavior in the universe for some reason we don't understand that ends up happening.

There's not only no reason to consider a mind of some sort arranged things to happen as they do. I think when you bring a God into things, it complicates the issue and often ends up leaving one confused and trapped in circular logic(never mind the anthropic tinted goggles).

There's too much power in circular logic being used as a conclusion to some people's minds I think. It seems a self assertive explanation, a state of balance in paradox. And often it is posited as proof by the theist, though one could use the same logic in ridiculous examples.

I think when you break it down, it's a lot harder to accept a prime organizer or God happening by itself than a giant thing like reality happening all by itself that has certain rules and activities which obey laws of behavior.

I think it's more likely that a material thing (at the most reduced level made up of almost pure and rudimentary components that are simply behaving within parameters established by what works and what doesn't) existed all along with no beginning, than that a vast and nearly infinitely complex awareness came about or has always been.

I think even abstractly that things start out at the bottom as less complicated, and move towards arrangements.

A god is just way too complicated a thing for me to imagine as being a universal constant. A god is the most complicated thing possible, even. Which betrays it for the human expectation it is.

I think consciousness is a very complicated and almost mechanical thing that can only be made possible through many simple components being arranged through trial and error.

I think a godless material universe is far more beautiful an idea aesthetically and full of far more meaning than a God is as well, when you really get down to considering it.

Which is what saddens me when theists dismiss the material world view as being bleak and without meaning. I truly find the idea of a universe with a loving god who arranged all things to be the bleak and meaningless view.

A Prime Mover turns everything into a tool or construct, rather than a thing of such improbable complextiy and interconnected reaction that it takes the breath away for being so miraculous and seemingly improbable.
A god makes everything mundane and probable. The only mystery left is "How did God always exist by itself" at that point.

One can reason away meaning and importance with logic, but I think aesthetic elegance speaks for itself and I am just happy I can appreciate such things with emotion and pleasure and humor. I find it all captivating and so much more "spiritual" than any spiritualist can make things out to be with their talk of absolute meaning and souls and gods and worship.

I'd rather the universe be a miracle of inter related behavior than a giant construct created by some vast architect. That to me is precious and fragile and full of importance and meaning to be appreciated for it's elegance.

I think the universe has a very natural and material behavior to create order from chaos. We can demonstrate this with feedback loops of chaos and I find that more satisfying than any time I spent growing up worshiping God and wondering at his plans.

If you haven't watch it yet, I recommend you watch the BBC's Secret Life of Chaos. At least to the part with the flame and the video feedback. I found it to be quite an eye opening introduction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus

 

[Dancing David]

By its nature it can't be proven either way. My point in this thread is that the possibility of an unbounded infinity in relation to physical reality or existence, is not addressed by materialism

"imagination, then".

Not entirely material( as material is currently understood)

This is silly, the universe under current theories ie often infinite, I guess you just ignore that.

Imagination is totally material until you demonstrate it absent a brain.

 

[Dancing David]

Have you considered at any point how an omnipotent God/creator might manifest in the known universe?

Yes I have, maybe you should state your ideas rather than being vague. The fact that you can not state how one would know is your problem, not mine. There is no way to find evidence of a creator, therefore the point is moot.

 

[Robin]

By its nature it can't be proven either way. My point in this thread is that the possibility of an unbounded infinity in relation to physical reality or existence, is not addressed by materialism

"imagination, then".

Not entirely material( as material is currently understood)

Materialism encompasses anything that could, in principle, be the subject of a physical model.

Anything that could be described mathematically could be the subject of a physical model.

If there were an unbounded infinity in relation to our observable physical reality then it could be described by a mathematical model and as such would be encompassed by Materialism if there were such a thing as an unbounded infinity.

It is just that we currently have no reason for making any speculation either way about such a thing.

 

[punshhh]

What do you think this means, it is not standard use of terminology. Sigularity is a mathematical descrption of the place where QM and GR break down.

The existance and nature of the gravitational black holes is consistent.
The nature of space time in the singularity is currently not understood and is part of GUT. (Which we do not have)

So what essence/idea are you reffering to?

What sort of singularity are you reffering to?

Basically my point in this thread is that materialism has not presented a logical understanding/explanation of our existence.

I see a paradox in that (a) a possibly infinite extension of finite universes/dimensions is considered reasonable. Alongside (b) little consideration of an 'infinite source' of existence.

Now (a) defies logic and (b) is surely dictated by logic.

I just want to point out before I discuss singularities, that I am not justifying or explaining the existence of any kind of God in this thread. I am not going to turn round and shout GWIMW!
However I will draw on the teachings of the religion in which infinity was first considered and discussed by humanity, as a template for a definition, to help illustrate my ideas.

When I attempted to define an 'infinite singularity', I was viewing it as a physical reality, rather than in the realm of the mind or of consciousness.

So we have a universe existing in space-time, consisting of finite 'atoms' their associated subatomic particles and energies.
We gather that all these atoms originated/sprang from a singularity, at a point in time. A singularity where QM and GR 'breakdown', (are meaningless), (perhaps point in time is also meaningless).

Perhaps this is our infinite creator?

Anyway, to me this process is important, as it is 'hard evidence'(c), for the 'existence' effectively of an infinite creator/generator.
It supports my claim that logic dictates that finite existence is created/generated from singularities.

Now if this singularity is not infinite spatially and temporally, then we are back to square one, ie a finite number of forms, this time singularities rather than atoms.
Logic would (going from the evidence we have (c)), dictate that these finite singularities must have been created/generated by some kind of 'greater'
singularity themselves, ad infinitum.

Hence we are left with an infinite(spatially, temporally) singularity, I would argue infinitely infinite in every way.

If I am wrong, could anyone please offer me another logical explanation of finite existence?

 

[punshhh]

Materialism encompasses anything that could, in principle, be the subject of a physical model.

Anything that could be described mathematically could be the subject of a physical model.

If there were an unbounded infinity in relation to our observable physical reality then it could be described by a mathematical model and as such would be encompassed by Materialism if there were such a thing as an unbounded infinity.

It is just that we currently have no reason for making any speculation either way about such a thing.

If this is the case then I am a materialist, perhaps that materialist you were asking someone to name.

 

[punshhh]

Imagination is totally material until you demonstrate it absent a brain.

Perhaps silliness is imagination without a brain(intelligence).

 

[punshhh]

Again, semantics get in the way of framing the question properly.

Even if there is a creator then the universe still came out of nowhere, if you think about it.

Because a creator cannot be anywhere.

Maybe you meant "came out of nothing".

But this would imply that you were using temporal thinking for what would necessarily be a non-temporal problem.

And that is to assume that there is a problem. But we don't know that. Nobody has demonstrated that the Universe had to "come out" of anything at all.

So rather than say "the Universe came out from nothing" we could alternately suggest "the Universe did not come from anything".

Yes I was aware if this distinction, I was saving that particular knutshell for further down the line.

Thanks anyway, it helps me to word things more clearly and conversely it might help the skeptics to 'think outside the box'

 

[punshhh]

Yes I have, maybe you should state your ideas rather than being vague. The fact that you can not state how one would know is your problem, not mine. There is no way to find evidence of a creator, therefore the point is moot.

Its not a problem, rather a working hypothesis.

I dispute the idea that there is no way to find evidence of a creator, it is all around us, as described by the laws of physics. This is a semantic distinction between a 'creator' and how physics describes the origin of existence.

 

[punshhh]

Why should it be? You haven't given any examples of an actual infinity that needs to be addressed.

I can't see any other logical explanation for how we are here.

 

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps silliness is imagination without a brain(intelligence).

Equivocation fallacy. Stop that.