• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

Punshhh, is energy something you can make things out of, yes or no?

When you answer the question it will be easier to point out where you're going wrong.
 
dlorde said:
Reality is not really real?

I feel a new sig entry coming on :D
Click to expand...

Try to pin down reality and it tends to become rather elusive.

It seems rather short sighted to me to assume that what humanity has figured out for itself about reality is the whole story.

You only need to reflect on the history of scientific understanding to observe that what was considered the assumed wisdom of the day, was repeatedly changed and updated as new steps forward in understanding occured.

Has this now finished have we achieved scientific enlightenment?

On a larger scale how do we know that the foundations of the reality we know and understand are not perhaps quite different to how we observe them. Rather like the early flat earther's assumption that the world was flat because they could not understand or comprehend that the world could be a sphere.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Punshhh, is energy something you can make things out of, yes or no?

When you answer the question it will be easier to point out where you're going wrong.
Click to expand...

no

However it has been stated by astrophysicists that atoms were formed from energy during the BBE.
 
PixyMisa said:
It seems vastly more short sighted to ignore everything humanity has figured out and just make stuff up.
Click to expand...

Who is ignoring what humanity has figured out?

Really pixy to consider that there might be more to existence than what we know through human endeavor is not to ignore any of it. It is only to accept that we may not yet be in full possession of the full picture of reality rather like the flat earthers of old.

Or are you just hand waving?
 
Pixy Misa re: post #1938 Your many one word, one line answers, don't explain anything. Try including some references and explanations, not just your magical incantations. The issue isn't what I apparently know or think about where tensile strength come from, it's about what your reference article clearly states or doesn't state. If you need another source document, then use it. If the EM force is globally repulsive on all planets including gas giants like Jupiter then it proves my case, not yours. It means EM & gravity hold planets together. Not just gravity. Also any divergence from roundness of a celestial body isn't conclusive proof that gravity isn't affective. It takes time to acquire such a form under gravity's influence. Let's get real. Your skate around ... and avoid ... and one-line answers ... but it's not real. The Pauli exclusion principle isn't small bananas. This is the first sign that you are falling apart with your silly argument.

I didn't misread the article on the moons and the rigid and liquid Roche limits. Cite it if I did. I think, you won't do that because it would take more than a single word. You didn't cite a single scientific study or reference. One word, one line magic. It's baloney!
 
kenkoskinen said:
Pixy Misa re: post #1938 Your many one word, one line answers, don't explain anything. Try including some references and explanations, not just your magical incantations. The issue isn't what I apparently know or think about where tensile strength come from, it's about what your reference article clearly states or doesn't state.
Click to expand...
It states what I said it does.

You know that tensile strength comes from the electromagnetic force. You said so yourself.

If you need another source document, then use it. If the EM force is globally repulsive on all planets including gas giants like Jupiter then it proves my case, not yours.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

It means EM & gravity hold planets together. Not just gravity.
Click to expand...
What?

Also any divergence from roundness of a celestial body isn't conclusive proof that gravity isn't affective.
Click to expand...
It demonstrates that gravity isn't the most significant force on that scale. If it were, you'd get a sphere.

It takes time to acquire such a form under gravity's influence.
Click to expand...
For a planet? No.

Let's get real. Your skate around ... and avoid ... and one-line answers ... but it's not real.
Click to expand...
Any time you want to get real, feel free.

The Pauli exclusion principle isn't small bananas. This is the first sign that you are falling apart with your silly argument.
Click to expand...
Really?

So, instead of collapsing into a tiny neutron star, the Earth would collapse into a tiny white dwarf star.

I didn't misread the article on the moons and the rigid and liquid Roche limits.
Click to expand...
I don't think you read it at all.

Cite it if I did. I think, you won't do that because it would take more than a single word. You didn't cite a single scientific study or reference. One word, one line magic. It's baloney!
Click to expand...
I suggest you go back and check your idea that opposite electromagnetic charges repel. That would be a good place to start.
 
kenkoskinen said:
I even admitted error, so how could I have used it to avoid anything? Your accusations are groundless. If you don't agree, prove it from the record.
Click to expand...
Hey, no problem, you admitted the error - respect for that. I may have misjudged the motivation behind the diversion, in which case I apologise.

I have not yet read anything that you've created, except criticism of others. I think you're probably capable ... but I'm waiting. From all your criticism I assume when it happens ... it will be out of this world and perfect! Yea ... right!
Click to expand...
Wait, I can't point out an error until I've 'created' something, and then you'll expect it to be perfect? Do I detect a hint of annoyance?

I don't claim to be error free - we all make mistakes - but when someone tries to correct a knowledgeable contributor with what I believe to be a factual inaccuracy, it grates, and I'll pull them up on it - and sometimes it takes a while to get an acknowledgement of the error - but we got there in the end - fair play to you.

If you're upset that I criticised your Noah's Flood article, then <meh> - I called it as I saw it.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Who is ignoring what humanity has figured out?

Really pixy to consider that there might be more to existence than what we know through human endeavor is not to ignore any of it. It is only to accept that we may not yet be in full possession of the full picture of reality rather like the flat earthers of old.

Or are you just hand waving?
Click to expand...

How will we get this full picture of reality?
 
punshhh said:
Try to pin down reality and it tends to become rather elusive.
Click to expand...
You have to be quick, or use a larger pin.

It seems rather short sighted to me to assume that what humanity has figured out for itself about reality is the whole story.
Click to expand...
Me too.

You only need to reflect on the history of scientific understanding to observe that what was considered the assumed wisdom of the day, was repeatedly changed and updated as new steps forward in understanding occured.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed.

Has this now finished have we achieved scientific enlightenment?
Click to expand...
No, indeed.

On a larger scale how do we know that the foundations of the reality we know and understand are not perhaps quite different to how we observe them.
Click to expand...
Well, as has been repeated many times, we don't really know what the foundations of reality are - but it's possible, as you say, that they are not, perhaps, quite different to how we observe them. Maybe what you see really is what you get...

Rather like the early flat earther's assumption that the world was flat because they could not understand or comprehend that the world could be a sphere.
Click to expand...
well no, that would contradict what you said above. The Earth is round and is not, perhaps, quite different to how we observe it.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Try to pin down reality and it tends to become rather elusive.

It seems rather short sighted to me to assume that what humanity has figured out for itself about reality is the whole story.

You only need to reflect on the history of scientific understanding to observe that what was considered the assumed wisdom of the day, was repeatedly changed and updated as new steps forward in understanding occured.

Has this now finished have we achieved scientific enlightenment?

On a larger scale how do we know that the foundations of the reality we know and understand are not perhaps quite different to how we observe them. Rather like the early flat earther's assumption that the world was flat because they could not understand or comprehend that the world could be a sphere.
Click to expand...
The Ancient Greeks knew that the world was round,Roger Bacon knew that the World was round.
 
punshhh said:
Try to pin down reality and it tends to become rather elusive.

It seems rather short sighted to me to assume that what humanity has figured out for itself about reality is the whole story.

You only need to reflect on the history of scientific understanding to observe that what was considered the assumed wisdom of the day, was repeatedly changed and updated as new steps forward in understanding occured. Has this now finished have we achieved scientific enlightenment?

On a larger scale how do we know that the foundations of the reality we know and understand are not perhaps quite different to how we observe them. Rather like the early flat earther's assumption that the world was flat because they could not understand or comprehend that the world could be a sphere.
Click to expand...

What new steps in understanding do you have to present?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom